Quantifying the volunteer effort of scientific peer reviewing.

A survey of 310 reviewers for Monthly Weather Review addresses how much time and effort goes into the peer-review process and provides insight into how reviewers function. Using these data, the individual and collective contributions of volunteer peer reviewers to the peer-review process can be determined. Individually, respondents to the survey review an average of 2 manuscripts a year for Monthly Weather Review, 4 manuscripts a year for AMS journals, and 8 manuscripts a year in total, although some review more than 20 manuscripts a year. Each review takes an average of 9.6 h. Summing the individual contributions of the reviewers, respondents averaged 18 h yr−1 performing reviews for Monthly Weather Review, 36 h yr−1 for AMS journals, and 63 h yr−1 for all journals. The collective time that all of the reviewers put into the peer-review process for all manuscripts submitted to Monthly Weather Review for each year amounts to 362,179 h, or more than 4 years of voluntary labor valued at over $2.34 million. N...

[1]  Donald W. King,et al.  Scientific journals in the United States: Their production, use, and economics , 1981 .

[2]  P. Zhou,et al.  The Emergence of China as a Leading Nation in Science. Research Policy, 35(1), 2006, 83-104. , 2006, 0911.3421.

[3]  Jack Meadows,et al.  Editorial Peer Review: Its Strengths and Weaknesses , 2002, J. Documentation.

[4]  R. Fletcher,et al.  The effects of blinding on the quality of peer review. A randomized trial. , 1990, JAMA.

[5]  Leo Egghe.  Problems with “natural selection of academic papers” , 2011, Scientometrics.

[6]  PHIL CLAPHAM,et al.  Publish or Perish , 2005 .

[7]  J Smith,et al.  What do peer reviewers do? , 1990, JAMA.

[8]  R. Rauber,et al.  JOURNALS AND MONOGRAPHS: The Evolving Publication Process Of the AMS , 2007 .

[9]  Jean-Charles Billaut,et al.  Should you believe in the Shanghai ranking? An NCDM view , 2010 .

[10]  Kristine C. Harper,et al.  Weather by the Numbers: The Genesis of Modern Meteorology , 2008 .

[11]  B. Geerts.  Trends in Atmospheric Science Journals: A Reader's Perspective , 1999 .

[12]  J. Neumann,et al.  Numerical Integration of the Barotropic Vorticity Equation , 1950 .

[13]  David M. Schultz.  Eloquent Science: A Practical Guide to Becoming a Better Writer, Speaker, and Atmospheric Scientist , 2009 .

[14]  R. Wilson.  ‘Referee factor’ would reward a vital contribution , 2006, Nature.

[15]  Paul J. Roebber,et al.  Peer Review, Program Officers and Science Funding , 2011, PloS one.

[16]  A. Ewing.  Weather by the Numbers , 1968 .

[17]  Jean-Charles Billaut,et al.  Should you believe in the Shanghai ranking? , 2010, Scientometrics.

[18]  Nabil Amara,et al.  Is the academic Ivory Tower becoming a managed structure? A nested analysis of the variance in activities of researchers from natural sciences and engineering in Canada , 2010, Scientometrics.

[19]  David M. Schultz,et al.  Are three heads better than two? How the number of reviewers and editor behavior affect the rejection rate , 2010, Scientometrics.

[20]  Catherine Dehon,et al.  Uncovering excellence in academic rankings: a closer look at the Shanghai ranking , 2009, Scientometrics.

[21]  A. Yankauer,et al.  Who are the peer reviewers and how much do they review? , 1990, JAMA.

[22]  Pandelis Perakakis,et al.  Natural selection of academic papers , 2010, Scientometrics.

[23]  E. Knighting.  Weather by Numbers , 1972, Nature.