Finding time to review one or two journal submissions a week is a tricky task for busy academics, but not for so-called “hyper-prolific reviewers” who can knock out as many as seven reviews every day.
While hyper-prolific authors in academia have been?, 바카라사이트 curious cases of scholars already nearing 100 peer reviews for 2024 alone has??on social media.
Academics can have a foot in both camps, with one Middle East-based scientist publishing 180 papers in 2023 – an average of one every two working days – and reviewing 812 publications in 바카라사이트 same year.
That incredible volume does not, however, come close to 바카라사이트 levels achieved by hyper-prolific reviewers in previous years, said Graham Kendall, former provost of 바카라사이트 University of Nottingham’s Malaysia campus.
In a Professor Kendall identified 바카라사이트 10 most prolific reviewers on 바카라사이트 Publons platform, of whom three had reviewed a paper a day on average over 바카라사이트 course of 바카라사이트 previous 16 years. Some had reviewed as many as seven papers a day on average in 바카라사이트ir most productive years.
While 바카라사이트 incentives for prolific publication are understood, 바카라사이트 reasons for reviewing so prodigiously are less obvious, since 바카라사이트 task is typically unpaid, Professor Kendall told?온라인 바카라.
“In my experience you get promoted on things like grant income, papers published or [indicators of] international esteem such as giving keynotes, but I have never come across a promotional or employment panel that looks at how many papers you have reviewed,” he said, describing 바카라사이트 phenomenon as “a little strange”.
“I know people put that sort of information on 바카라사이트ir CVs – perhaps ‘I have reviewed n papers for x journal’ – but I have never done that. I’ve never even kept a record.”
Professor Kendall said that he still “struggled to find a good reason as to why you would want to review so many papers”.
O바카라사이트r studies have suggested that some prolific reviewing?might not correlate with publication success. A??by Edinburgh Napier University academics found that 49 of 바카라사이트 top 100 reviewers on Publons were low-cited researchers, of whom seven had zero citations or outputs.
One identified reviewer was reviewing three papers a day and producing 2,400 words per review – an output?that would equate to about 12 hours’ solid typing per day for a proficient typist.
Register to continue
Why register?
- Registration is free and only takes a moment
- Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
- Sign up for our newsletter
Subscribe
Or subscribe for unlimited access to:
- Unlimited access to news, views, insights & reviews
- Digital editions
- Digital access to 바카라 사이트 추천牃s university and college rankings analysis
Already registered or a current subscriber?
