Is the quality of peer reviews you receive declining?

Answer Explanations

• No

  user-980558
  Possible reasons for this could be:
  
  

  • Reviewers are still providing thorough, well-structured, and constructive feedback.
  • The journals or conferences you submit to maintain high standards for peer review.
  • The review process has improved due to better editorial policies or technological advancements.
  • You have not noticed any significant decline in the depth or usefulness of the feedback.
• Unsure

  user-337879
  I had fair reviews in my last publication, with critics thar were pertinent and improved the quality of the paper
• Yes

  user-657321
  Maybe I am getting less tolerant and more aware of silly reviews but it is rare for me to get useful feedback that improves my work. 
• Unsure

  user-885591
  It depends on the journal, where some journals have consistently provided lower depth peer review, while others are somewhat random. There are no standards unfortunately and it is difficult to enforce any for pro bono work.
• Unsure

  user-515289
  Each reviewer has own opinion about subject and often opinions of different reviewers can be exactly opposite.
• Yes

  user-563966
  As an editor for some journals, I receive some peer-reviews of very poor quality. 
• No

  user-135565
  Pesons reviewing add value. 
• Unsure

  user-287804
  There are still reviewers who take peer reviewing very seriously and who spend a significant amount of time on a review and who provide constructive and smart feedback. And then there are some reviewers that seem to just fly over a manuscript and remark on some points that are actually discussed in the manuscript, which gives the impression that they haven't really read the manuscript. Some reviewers simply reject a paper without giving sufficient information on why they reject it and neither suggest improvements for further publication. It appears that those reviewers who don't take sufficient time for a peer review are increasing. This could be due to the increase in Journals and the vast amount of manuscripts to be reviewed. 
• Yes

  user-47498
  Often vague, conclusive reviews.
• No

  user-683654
  It various from one peer reviewer to the other. It depends on the experience and experience of the peer reviewer. 
• Unsure

  user-226006
  Depends, I receive many that I do not accept that are of questionable quality. However, in the journals I participate in, they are of good quality.
  
  
• No

  user-660265

  For a long time, over 10 years of my scientific career, I have been observing a constant level of reviews received, which unfortunately does not mean that they are of good quality.

  
  
• Yes

  user-167056
  The perception of declining quality in peer reviews can vary among researchers and fields. Some common concerns include:
  
  

  1. Inconsistency: Reviewers may provide inconsistent feedback or lack depth in their evaluations.
  2. Time Constraints: Increased workload for reviewers can lead to rushed reviews, affecting quality.
  3. Expertise: Finding qualified reviewers can be challenging, leading to less informed critiques.
  4. Bias: Personal or institutional biases may influence the review process.
• Yes

  user-489806
  On one article we are on the 5th review. The reviewer is introducing new issues they had not brought up before. Such behavior is immature and unprofessional.
• Unsure

  user-890260
  Sometimes I feel some comments that are not consistent
• Unsure

  user-200555
  I am new in catching sci poll so I cannot judge 
• Yes

  user-504085
  many of the reviewers the journal choose lack knowledge and/or experience in the subject area of the research paper submitted. 
  The journal editors should make certain that the reviewers selected are competent and knowledgeable on the subject.
  Most reviewers appear to be students (master, doctorate and post-docs) of the reviewer the journal chose, then these reviews are poor. 
  I am sure the supervisors of the students assigned the peer-reviewing process do not carefully check out what their students have reviewed of the papers submitted. 
• No

  user-717875
  It is getting batter and better as high impact journals seek also my review services, been invited in recently to review top impact journals
• No

  user-259567
  Reviewers more focused on materials and methods and statistics and very little emphasis on the intrepretation of the science and biology of the paper.
• Yes

  user-381514
  I am an Exec Ed for a Journal and the quality of reviews has declined along with the availability of reviewers. Sometimes I have to send requests to 20 or more reviewers before I and get the required two. Even then about 20% of the reviews miss things that I notice when I do the final review of the manuscript before accepting it. The decline in good reviews and good reviewers seems to have decreased with the increase in journals, some of which do not get their submissions reviewed. This increases the likelihood that junk science will be published and further conceal the truth.
• No

  user-553940
  I do not feel that peer review process is declining but it may have some bias occassionslly
• Unsure

  user-633763
  As a reviewer, but considering the author's side, I find it difficult to nail down a consistent decline in peer review quality, as it significantly differs across journals and even individual submissions. There have been some concerns within academic circles regarding hurried or superficial reviews, likely driven by the need for faster publishing and an increasing number of submissions that are putting a strain on reviewers. Reviewers may also want to upgrade themselves and deliver their reports without a deep evaluation of the manuscripts. On the other hand, I’ve also seen very detailed and valuable feedback that upholds a high standard.  
• Yes

  user-940118
  There seems to be a bias towards seeking financial gain from such reports, eg seeking English Language editing when it is not required. Further I find myself arguing with referees to garner publication and usually winning such arguemnts.
• No

  user-676638
  Over last 15 years, I have published >50 papers, that means I have received review reports for that many papers. While I do not feel any clear up or down in terms of quality of review, it is a time-consuming process, and many times, referees simply fail to provide any logical reason for rejection.
• Yes

  user-252840
  Yes, of late, quite often I have felt that a non-expert sends an AI-generated review. many of the questions do not even make sense.
• No

  user-182571
  In my opinion the mean quality of peer reviews remains rather similar over time but the fluctuations of quality may be more noticeable.
• Yes

  user-316703
  Most of the reviews are not very useful in constructing the theoretical advancement of the study. 
• Yes

  user-868311
  Nowadays i received more and more review asking for adding extra articles or just extend the explanation of certain figure. rarely, i really get a good feedback about the article. Even in the high impact journals. 
  
  
• Yes

  user-645616
  referees increasingly care about endogeneity. it is now required far too much effort to persuade reviewers that a relation is causal. the papers become longer, with more tables, and increasingly more rounds of revisions are required. at the same time i am not sure whether the nowadays papers are any better than those 20 years ago. i think that we care too much for little things and not enough on the substance of the papers.    
• Yes

  user-68365
  In may cases, reviewer appear to lack the methodological expertise to make helpful comments on our manuscript - in many cases they even make suggestions (e.g., for alternative statistical analyses) that would make the paper worse rather than better.
  Often, mostly scientifically irrelevant comments like "cite this paper" (probably their own?) or "the text is too long" or "that table should be moved to an appendix" are made.
  There are areas/journals, however, where the quality of the reviews is still good and we receive at least some interesting comments.
• No

  user-763126
  So far, the quality of peer-reviews have maintained its standard quality. Obviously it is related to the Editorial policy.
• Yes

  user-486679
  More than a loss of quality, it's mainly a problem of expertise compatibility. More often than not, I've had reviewers whose field of expertise didn't match that of the submitted article, and so I've had inappropriate comments. I've also had comments on statistical tests that indicated a lack of knowledge on the part of the reviewer, whose area of expertise did not match that of the submitted article.
• Yes

  user-753624
  In No APC (free) journal, this process is very slow in terms of time frame. Thorough and honest review is also declining in these journals. In Paid and reputed journals, quality is still present at desk checking and Editor level. Reviewer quality is slowly declining. Third category is Predatory Publishers/Journal, they can publish anything !
  These are my personal view and opinion.    
• Yes

  user-547538
  It is most possible that juniors do them and seem overzealous
• Yes

  user-429130
   "The volume of submissions has increased significantly, and reviewers often do not have the time or resources to provide thorough and thoughtful feedback. As a result, reviews are sometimes rushed, vague, or lack depth." 
• Yes

  user-863705
  The quality of the reviews is lower than the previous year. The reasons are:
  increased number of manuscript;  the editors send the manuscript to many reviewers as a results that the majority will refuse;  reviewers less exxperienced etc
• Yes

  user-158216
  In truth, the average value might decrease just because there are more peer-reviewers since there are more manuscripts being published and there are stronger motivations to conduct peer-reviews (which might lead to poorer quality). I believe to the pool of faithful reviewers (most high quality) were added many poor reviewer with misguided motivations which decreased the average value of peer-reviews just by dilluting the good folks.
• Yes

  user-630519
  I believe that the decline in the quality of peer reviews is largely driven by the increasingly short timelines imposed by journals. While rapid publication is essential for scientific progress, it often comes at the expense of a thorough and critical evaluation of manuscripts. Peer reviewers, who are typically active researchers with demanding schedules, are given limited time to assess complex studies, verify data integrity, and provide constructive feedback. This time pressure not only reduces the depth of the review but may also lead to superficial assessments or missed methodological flaws. Additionally, the urgency to secure reviewers within tight deadlines can result in less experienced or less specialized experts being assigned, further impacting the rigor of the review process. To maintain high standards in scientific publishing, it is crucial to strike a balance between timely dissemination of research and allowing sufficient time for comprehensive, high-quality peer evaluation 
• Yes

  user-859444
  Recognize that sometimes reviewers either use ChatGPT/AI platforms or it is clear they didn't fully read the manuscript provided. 
• No

  user-947768
  So far all the peer review reports I have received for my works have help improve the technical quality of my papers. 
• Yes

  user-753537
  Highly variable - but overall, yes, i feel it has been declining
• Yes

  user-886047
  The quality is variable. Some reviewers seem to rush the task and only give superficial comments. 
• No

  user-561124
  No. Its just the same as a few years ago.
• Yes

  user-94992
  Some editorial decisions are not objective.
• Yes

  user-914553
  The reviewers usually are not knowledgeable of the topics.  With all the selection tools Editors have now (I am one of them and that's why I know this) I am surprised the quality of the reviewers selected for a specific paper is so low. 
• Yes

  user-92676
  There is a noticeable difference in quality. I myself receive review emails every day that I turn down due to lack time. The number of online publications nowadays demand an incredible number of reviews that established researchers do not have time to perform. This results in a reviewer level that is down to the master level even for journals with high impact factors.
• No

  user-234128
  It has been pretty stable over the years. However, it is becoming more and more difficult to be an evaluator because of the sheer number of requests we get, which is fuelled by the increase in the number of journals out there.
• No

  user-761856
  In my recent submitted book chapter, I received a very quality review
• Yes

  user-739318
  I think peer review is something not fair and some journals just want to keep a low acceptance rate.
• Yes

  Sonne72
  I always get very good peer reviews making my papers of a much higher standard. 
• No

  user-137061
  I think I recieved high quality peer reviews 
• Yes

  user-766670
  Either lack of experience, beyond the reviewer's expertise, conflict of interest, or focus in language   
• Yes

  user-203045
  Scisor effect is dramatic with less reviewers and more publications which means that colleagues with some expetrtises who accept decrease and editors assigned "expert" who are not able to clearly understand the data and their valorization. In parallel in some subjects (micor and nanoplastic ) more than 60% of publications are of a very poor interest (if there si some sometimes)....
• No

  user-927405
  I still get quality reviews
• No

  user-444164
  Most of the comments given by reviewers are valid and detailed.
• Unsure

  user-596421
  Some peer-reviewed publications have been shown not to meet the minimum threshold for the required methods and analysis.
• Yes

  user-537935
  Random reviewers with less specialty is in increase.
• Yes

  user-905145
  I send manuscript to the high quality journals, so that ı am taking good feedback from peer reviews
• No

  user-894724
  As the Hindex increases, I am getting reviews from outstanding journals.