This poll examined peer review experiences among SciPinion members, presenting significant insights into this cornerstone of scientific publishing.
When asked about perceived changes in peer review quality, opinions were split – 46% of respondents reported a decline in review quality, while 41% haven’t observed deterioration. Interestingly, most report manuscripts (56%) receive reviews within 1-2 months, though timing varies substantially by journal type and field of study.
What do researchers value most from peer reviews? Technical accuracy assessment and discussion/interpretation insights topped the list, with 70% of respondents rating discussion insights as highly or extremely valuable. In contrast, literature suggestions were generally considered less crucial to improving manuscripts.
Reviewer expertise emerged as a central concern. A striking 44% of scientists reported that reviewer expertise varies widely, while 31% noted reviewers typically possess general knowledge but lack specific subject expertise. As one participant observed: “Finding reviewers with comprehensive expertise across all relevant fields remains particularly challenging for interdisciplinary research.”
The time pressure placed on reviewers appears to be affecting quality. With increased publishing demands, journals often prioritize reviewer availability over specialized expertise, leading to situations where, as one respondent noted, “reviewers have general knowledge but lack the technical expertise needed for detailed, critical evaluation.”