3

SciPoll 729: Are you active in peer review?

On average, how many hours do you spend on each peer review?

Share Page
Post on LinkedIn
Copy URL to Clipboard
Copied!

Results
(388 Answers)

Answer Explanations

  • 2-4 hours
    user-849039
    Performing peer reviews has significantly improved my efficiency
  • 2-4 hours
    user-829204
    depends on the topic and paper type
  • 4-8 hours
    user-905834
    The timeline will depend on the topic and length of the paper.
  • 2-4 hours 4-8 hours
    user-673903
    It really depends on how many revisions are needed and how well written the manuscript is.
  • 2-4 hours
    user-703358
    Sometimes longer, rarely shorter except when it is an obvious rejection 
  • 8-16 hours
    user-882784
    This question assesses the time a reviewer typically spends evaluating a research manuscript. Peer review is a critical process in scientific publishing, requiring careful analysis of a study’s methodology, data, and conclusions. The response options help platforms like SciPinion understand the depth of review conducted by each expert. "8-16 hours" suggests an in-depth review, often including fact-checking, cross-referencing sources, and providing extensive feedback.

  • 4-8 hours
    user-439026
    I have read the paper roughly then read it another time deeply
  • 4-8 hours
    user-573627
    Closer to 4
  • Less than 2 hours
    user-832173
    I usually accept only peer review concerning my field of interest where I know the literature and I can work easily on it.
  • 2-4 hours
    user-753537
    I think about 4 hours, I try to spend less time but once started i want to do it right
  • 4-8 hours
    user-986977
    For thorough review
  • 2-4 hours
    user-135565
    Time is depending on the nature of the article, I like to make sure of my review.
  • Less than 2 hours
    user-558014
    Chose papers within. Y expertise area
  • 2-4 hours
    user-640046
    2-6 hours
  • 2-4 hours
    user-927405
    Yes
  • 4-8 hours
    user-861466
    They vary from <2 hours for simpler items, to over 8 hours for grant applications and complex papers.
  • 2-4 hours
    user-702431
    It takes time to read and check
  • More than 16 hours
    user-331973
    To do a detailed  critical review and give a comprehensive report requires more than 24 hrs.
  • More than 16 hours
    user-105846
    In general, a day or two are needed for the review process, however, in the case of a few articles it may take longer.
  • 8-16 hours More than 16 hours
    user-879376
    Depends on the content, volume and intricacies. 
  • 4-8 hours
    user-15180
    In depth review requires more than one reading of the paper and also checking existing literature for comparison of the state of the art. Details of the paper should be carefully checked. 
  • 8-16 hours
    user-548125
    Sometimes I have to read the works cited in the text, sometimes I want to check something additionally and that's why it takes a lot of time
  • 8-16 hours
    user-84898
    This will depend on the scope of the manuscript, but most papers in my field (molecular genetics) are highly technical and will require a substantial amount of time to provide useful and constructive reviewer feedback.
  • 2-4 hours
    user-962329
    I need to be thorough in case I miss things on initial review. 
  • 8-16 hours More than 16 hours
    user-861328
    I can review artciles in 8 hours, sometine more than 24 hours.
  • 2-4 hours 4-8 hours
    user-103012
    I spend averagely 4 hours to review a an article.
  • 4-8 hours
    user-980558
     A thorough peer review requires multiple readings of the manuscript, checking references, evaluating methodology, and providing constructive feedback. I take the time to ensure my comments are detailed, clear, and useful for both the authors and the journal. 
  • 2-4 hours
    user-563401
    depending on the scope and area of paper, if its in my area it takes less time, otherwise a longer time.
  • 4-8 hours 8-16 hours
    user-592268
    It depends sometimes about the topic of research, I've to suggest latest References/research citation, sometimes reading by myself to get the review process more improved. Normally I get to manage my time in 2-3 sittings with a good review.
  • Less than 2 hours
    user-36719
    As I have limited experience while editorial ship of scientific journal 
  • 4-8 hours
    user-943691
    A peer review needs substantial time. I prefer to sit for evaluating reviews for 4-8 hours during weekends and complete it one stretch. 
  • 4-8 hours
    user-162700
    It is a lot of work if a person does it properly. It is a huge responsibility as well. 
  • 4-8 hours
    user-25455
    split in 2-3 days
  • 4-8 hours
    user-24419
    It's easy to review a well-written document.  The other require more time. 
  • 8-16 hours
    user-60284
    Like to do  some up-Date on the subject before sending comments.
  • 2-4 hours
    user-226593
    I spent 2-4 hours to review a manuscript 
  • 8-16 hours
    sab2x
    Need to to a thorough job, often sleeping on it for an extra day to review again to see if you still agree with your own comments.
  • 2-4 hours 4-8 hours
    user-123942
    Plagiarism cheque and improvement of the manuscript are main task.
  • 4-8 hours
    user-863596
    I have review and suggest the authors about modification of almost all the subtitles if necessary
    I also suggest new references from other journals
  • 2-4 hours
    user-161126
    It depends on the publication and the quality of the specific manuscript
  • 4-8 hours
    user-316703
    Peer review is a rigorous process and takes a lot of time to evaluate and assess the manuscript as per the given criteria. 
  • 2-4 hours
    user-90744
    For complete review of manuscript i spend 2 - 4 hrs on manuscript study them completely
  • 2-4 hours 4-8 hours
    user-846904
    This depends on the manuscript length and topics. Short manuscripts can be read quickly and revision is quite fast, but some complicated stories may take time.
  • 4-8 hours
    user-683654
    Depending on type, I spend between 5-8 hours. That enables me to do a thorough review. 
  • 4-8 hours 8-16 hours
    user-401991
    Actually, it depends on the type and topic of the paper.
  • 2-4 hours 4-8 hours
    user-485021
    It depends how long is the manuscript, whether is well written or not, whether the authors are native speakers of English or not. My reviews are very detailed. Based on the quality of my reviews, the editor of the journal selected me to be the topic editor. 
  • More than 16 hours
    user-558408
    I am the Director of Scientific Review. 
  • 4-8 hours
    user-880984 
    Sometimes, even though it's my area, something new comes up that I need to study before giving my opinion, which increases my review time.

  • 4-8 hours
    user-427123
    I spent at least 4 hours for each peer review. 
  • 2-4 hours
    user-819455
    Always depends, if I am an expert in the area and really comfortable with the topic it takes much less time than one where it falls outside of my topic. 
  • user-967014
    I have not worked as peer reviewer
  • 8-16 hours
    user-333723
    On average, I spend approximately 8 to 16 hours on each peer review, depending on the complexity of the manuscript, the depth of analysis required, and the clarity of the writing. This includes reading the paper thoroughly, evaluating its methodology and findings, verifying references, and providing detailed, constructive feedback.

Previous Result Next Result

Debate
(3 Comments)

0
user-272415
02/13/2025 06:24
2 hours are enough to work concentrated on the peer review process. 
0
user-496176
02/26/2025 06:52

It depends on how well the manuscript is written.

0
user-763126
02/27/2025 05:48
At least 2-4 four years are necessary for a serious review.
Please log in to comment.