Finding willing peer reviewers is challenging. This viewpoint describes a health sciences reviewer’s experience regarding the decision to decline or accept review invitations, and the review process and outcome in terms of journal communication and duration. This audit included all manuscript review invitations received by the researcher in 2022–2024. Information was noted from emails received from the journals. Of 130 review invitations received, 49 (38%) were accepted. The most common reason for declining review invitations (23/81; 28%) was that the researcher, a biostatistician, did not regard herself as having the necessary clinical background. Of the 49 accepted invitations, reviews were submitted for 46 manuscripts (94%), with 24 manuscripts (52%) requiring more than one review round. The reviewer was informed of the journal decision after each review round for 22 (48%) reviewed manuscripts. However, the final journal decision regarding acceptance or rejection of the manuscript was received for only 14 (30%) reviewed manuscripts. Journals provided comments of other reviewers for 44% (n = 20/46) of reviewed manuscripts. To align with International Committee of Medical Journal Editors recommendations, journals should provide feedback to reviewers regarding other reviewers’ comments and the final journal decision. Journal information regarding the usual number of review rounds and duration may influence potential reviewers’ willingness to participate.
G Joubert (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: