Reviewing articles

Recently I get a lot of requests from journals (some of which i never heard of) to review papers submitted to them.  One then starts to wonder:

a) Why should I review ?  The first answer that comes to mind is that you can later add this "achievement" to your CV and it will count towards your promotion.  Does it really count that much ? Do reviewers of promotion applications pay that much attention to this type of "achievements"?  My view is that they do count but not to the level that it is often assumed.  A reviewer of a promotion application will expect to see some involvement of the candidate in the shaping of the community around the field and as such will expect some involvement in reviewing papers, seating on panels and conference program committees.  But I am not sure a reviewer will count and weight the volume of these contributions.  Hopefully a reviewer of a promotion will pay more attention to other things (e.g. publications).



The next argument i often here is that it is important to review so that you keep up to date with current research in your area.  This is a more valid argument but can't you do this by just reading published papers in journals than spending your time reviewing papers that might be weak examples and get rejected in the end anyways ?

And then comes the third (and maybe the key reason I review papers): You get a chance to read and identify mistakes that others make with the hope of avoiding them when you do your research or when you publish your work.  So now that we figured out the key reason why someone in my view should review papers, lets get to the basics of good approach to reviewing:

b) I often get annoyed when people review my papers and solely pay attention to the syntax and spelling errors.  Definitely syntax and spelling are important (nobody wants to publish something in a reputable journal full of stylistic and spelling errors) but is our role as reviewers to proof read ? Definitely NOT and we should all try to stop doing this.. this is the job of the publisher and that is why they pay professional editors to review final proof read before they get published... :-)  So rule 1: When you review don't pay attention purely on syntax and spelling errors... the author most probably expects from you some more constructive comments regarding the substance of their paper.

c) Rule 2: be positive.  Even if you are suggesting rejection of the paper state it in a way that does not crash the feelings of the author. I remember as a PhD student putting a paper aside and never trying to publish it again after reading the review comments.  I am sure I could have instead work on improving it and publishing it later.  So, be constructive and encourage the author to look at the mistakes with a goal of improving the paper.

d) Rule 3: Don't write a review longer that the paper itself.  It makes no sense doing that.  If you thought the paper is full of so many mistakes, then politely reject it, give some guidance to the author and stop it there.  Don't user your review as an opportunity to philosophize about your research area (or even worse about your own research).

e) I used to get annoyed when reviewers suggest (without revealing their identity :) that i need to cite their own papers.... until a friend said "wait a second, if the journal decided that i am an expert in this area and asked me to read this damn paper... and they didn't look or cited my work.. then ofcourse i ought to point this out to them"... I think this is indeed a valid point.  You are chosen to review as an expert because your work is highly related.. if your work is that related then it should be cited.... so i stopped considering this a selfish move.

Now go back to writing your papers and forget about reviewers :-).....