SciRev News

Most reviews for biological sciences
Published November 2016
With almost 800 (793) review experiences, biological sciences received by far most reviews at SciRev. Clinical medicine takes with 555 reviews the second place. Engineering and Technology comes with 482 reviews third, social sciences with 346 reviews fourth and behavioral (psychological) sciences with 334 reviews fifth.

We've passed the 3500 reviews!
Published October 2016
The number of review experiences reported at SciRev keeps increasing. This month we passed the 3500 reviews!

Paid peer review
Published October 2015
To help speed up the scientific peer review process, SciRev aims to set up a paid review system in which referees get a fair payment for their work on the condition that they complete their review on time. We are aiming at USD 100 per review.

At this moment we are building up a database of referees for all scientific disciplines, who are interested in participating in this system. Researchers who have the expertise and time to deliver high quality reviews of manuscripts in their field are invited to register as paid referee.

Researchers who already have a SciRev account can do so by going to the Paid Peer Review tab on top of their account. Researchers without an account can register here.

Average duration first review round 15 weeks
Published July 2014
SciRev data make clear that the duration of the first review round of the peer review process is on average 15 weeks and that it varies considerably among and within scientific fields. It is about 10 weeks in medical sciences, 14 weeks in natural sciences and 17 weeks in social sciences and humanities.

While writing a peer review may take between four and eight hours, in only 11% of reported cases authors were informed about the outcome in less than a month. In nearly half of the cases (46%), authors had to wait three months or more before being informed. In Social Sciences and Humanities, one fifth (21%) of authors even had to wait at least half a year.

It is yet unclear to what extent the long duration of the first review round is the result of the peer review process as such and to what extent it is due to (in)efficient manuscript handling at editorial offices.

Given that we found immediate rejection times to be often long (see here), it seems that inefficiencies at editorial offices are important. The finding that Medical Sciences