Who are our reviewers and how do they review? The profile and work of Biological Conservation reviewers

Primack, Richard B., Maron, Martine and Campos-Arceiz, Ahimsa (2016) Who are our reviewers and how do they review? The profile and work of Biological Conservation reviewers. Biological Conservation, 211 177-182. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2016.11.039


Author Primack, Richard B.
Maron, Martine
Campos-Arceiz, Ahimsa
Title Who are our reviewers and how do they review? The profile and work of Biological Conservation reviewers
Formatted title
Who are our reviewers and how do they review? The profile and work of Biological Conservation reviewers
Journal name Biological Conservation   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 0006-3207
1873-2917
Publication date 2016-12-14
Sub-type Article (original research)
DOI 10.1016/j.biocon.2016.11.039
Open Access Status Not yet assessed
Volume 211
Start page 177
End page 182
Total pages 6
Place of publication Amsterdam, Netherlands
Publisher Elsevier BV
Language eng
Formatted abstract
To improve the present system of peer review of scientific papers, editors and publishers need to know: Who are the reviewers? How frequently do they decline or accept and complete their reviews? And what factors affect their willingness to accept reviews? We analyzed the peer review process for 1590 manuscripts submitted to the journal Biological Conservation during the period 2014-2015. Overall, 11,840 review invitations were sent to 6555 different reviewers. 60% of invited reviewers were from four large English-speaking countries-United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada-while only 1% or fewer of invited reviewers were from certain populous countries such as India and China. Considering only the first round of reviews, we found that, on average, editors invited 6.7 reviewers per manuscript, and reviewers accepted 37% of invitations. Reviewer gender, seniority, and academic productivity had no effect on acceptance rate. Reviewers from China accepted a higher proportion of invitations than did reviewers from any other country. Individuals who had accepted an invitation were more likely to accept a second invitation for a different manuscript, and reviewers who were fast with one review tended to be fast with the review of the next manuscript. Over 90% of reviewers completed their reviews, and most reviews were submitted on time. Editors should consider expanding the diversity of reviewers they invite, and particularly invite more scientists from under-represented countries.
Keyword Diversity
Manuscripts
Peer review
Publication recommendation
Review completion time
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Provisional Code
Institutional Status UQ

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Article (original research)
Collections: School of Geography, Planning and Environmental Management Publications
HERDC Pre-Audit
 
Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 1 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article | Citations
Scopus Citation Count Cited 2 times in Scopus Article | Citations
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Tue, 17 Jan 2017, 11:18:18 EST by System User on behalf of Learning and Research Services (UQ Library)