Peer review and its contribution to manuscript quality: an Australian perspective

Journal reviewers' understanding and expectations of peer review, their incentives to take on the task, and the reasons why they sometimes declined were explored through a questionnaire survey, with particular attention to potential differences between education, physics, and chemistry. Eighty‐four senior researchers from 27 Australian universities, who had served as reviewers in education, physics, and chemistry, returned a completed questionnaire. There were significant variations in reviewers' expectations and understanding of reviewing, mostly related to seniority rather than discipline. They valued peer review as a way of maintaining the quality of science publications, and were generally satisfied with the current system; their impression of peer review's effectiveness was significantly correlated with their own experience. They saw reviewing as a professional obligation and part of their personal professional development. The most frequently mentioned reasons for declining to review were lack of expertise and lack of time.