{"id":552,"date":"2015-11-25T16:30:15","date_gmt":"2015-11-25T16:30:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/why-peer-reviewers-refuse-review-requests\/"},"modified":"2025-02-17T13:18:34","modified_gmt":"2025-02-17T13:18:34","slug":"why-peer-reviewers-refuse-review-requests","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/why-peer-reviewers-refuse-review-requests","title":{"rendered":"Why peer reviewers refuse review requests"},"content":{"rendered":"

Peer review is an integral part of scholarly publication. Hence, peer reviewers are held in high regard as they improve the quality of science that reaches publication and weed out questionable research. With the volume of publishing increasing each year, peer reviewers find themselves with multiple requests to review manuscripts. Peer reviewing is a voluntary service that researchers agree to undertake in their spare time and is usually unpaid. As a result, <\/span>journal editors are finding it increasingly difficult to appoint reviewers as many do not want to accept review requests<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n

To gain a deeper understanding of the reasons behind referees\u2019 refusal to review, and ascertain whether the denial stems from \u201creviewer fatigue\u201d (due to numerous review requests) and\u00a0whether the reviewer behavior depends on gender, an editor at the\u00a0American Political Science Review<\/em><\/a>,\u00a0<\/em>Marijke Breuning, along with the journal\u2019s staff, conducted a survey. The findings of this study were published in the paper Reviewer Fatigue? Why Scholars Decline to Review their Peers\u2019 Work<\/a>.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The journal had sent 4,563 review requests to 3,414 experts in 2013. On an average, about 6-7 requests were sent per manuscript. Of all the requests, 30.6% were sent to women, indicating that they received requests that are proportional to their presence in the discipline. Breuning and his team found that 82.8% of reviewers responded to the invitation whether with a positive reply or a refusal. Further, close to 60% of the requests received a positive response whereas the decline rate was close to 23%. \u00a0Moreover, the rate of acceptance of review requests was the same among female and male experts.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The interesting aspect of this study was determining the reason behind reviewers\u2019 refusal of the review requests. While most women declined citing \u201cOther personal issues (e.g., personal or family member\u2019s illness)\u201d and \u201cProfessional leave or sabbatical,\u201d men declined due to \u201cAdministrative duties (chair, dean, committee assignments).\u201d Even so, the study\u2019s authors were particularly intent on finding out whether \u201creviewer fatigue\u201d played a role in declining review requests. The authors of the paper define \u201creviewer fatigue\u201d as \u201cstatements indicating scholars decline because they have other reviews to complete and\/or cannot take on an additional review.\u201d Reviewer fatigue was found to account for 14.1% of the declines. Additionally, 38.9% of experts, including male and female, reasoned that they were \u201cToo busy,\u201d which the authors of the study feel could be accounted to reviewer fatigue.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The study indicates that reviewer fatigue was not the sole reason behind authors declining review requests; reviewers often refuse review requests due to their busy schedules. The authors sum this up as follows: \u201cTaken together, the various reasons that scholars report when they decline to review suggest that they have busy professional and personal lives. Reviewer fatigue plays a role but is not the only reason to decline a request to review.\u201d <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Although peer reviewing is central to scientific publishing, journal editors often find it difficult to find reviewers who are suited to analyze manuscripts and are willing to take up assignments. However, it is more difficult for editors to find reviewers who follow the journal timelines. Sometimes, reviews are delayed or reviewers leave midway, leaving editors looking for other reviewers. The editors of some journals ask the authors to suggest reviewers. <\/span>Angela Cochran<\/a>, Director of Journals for the American Society of Civil Engineers,\u00a0notes that this practice adds to the problem of reviewer fatigue. She explains that editors probably have a pool of 10,000 reviewers while authors are likely to have a limited pool and would tend to pick those reviewers who are most accessible and are likely to accept the job. Therefore, she writes, \u201c<\/span>Selecting 50 \u201cgo to\u201d reviewers out of 10,000 means that you are burning out those 50 awesome reviewers.<\/a>\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n

In their paper, the authors of the study have made the following suggestions to improve the way peer reviewers are selected and approached:<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n