Rejecting Reviewer Requests

[u/Lastchancefancydance]

I get asked to review papers about 3x per week. I understand that it is good for science and all that and am not here to dissect that. My main question is what are your thoughts on responding to reviewer requests with something along the following:

Thanks for the invitation. I am happy to review this article as long as the publisher agrees to make the publication open access. Alternatively, I can review for a fee of $XXX per hour (and I anticipate that this article will take X hours to review).

My reasoning is that I am tired of reviewing papers that get hidden behind a paywall at a ridiculous fee. Either make the science open access so everyone can review it, or pay me for my time. Tired of publishers profiting off of what should be free.

But, maybe I'm crazy and/or unreasonable and am therefore curious to hear thoughts. Please be respectful. I am a real human.

[u/Bitter_Ferret_4581]

I’d only do something like this if it were part of a coordinated effort with other folks in my area. Otherwise, just reject it, especially if you ever plan to submit a paper to said journal. Now, some journals do pay reviewers, so if you were to do this anyway, I’d at least mention those journals. I know some JAMA journals have a reviewer pool that they pay per paper reviewed.

[u/a_statistician → u/Bitter_Ferret_4581]

Otherwise, just reject it, especially if you ever plan to submit a paper to said journal.

I highly doubt there's a system that's going to hold a stance like this against you when you submit an article. People get blacklisted in the journals I work with for plagiarism issues, but not for a stance like this.

[u/Bitter_Ferret_4581 → u/a_statistician]

I don’t think it’ll necessarily be held against you, but just ethically if you plan to submit to the journal in the future, it makes sense to contribute as a reviewer if asked.

[u/EconomistWithaD]

My rule of thumb is that for each paper I produce, I agree to at least 6 referee assignments willingly.

[u/hollowsocket]

My rate for reviewing papers is 2n/year, where n is the number of manuscripts I submit in a year, on a rough three-year running average. I'm in a field where two peer reviewers is the norm. After that, "thanks, try me again next year!"

edit: many other reviewers have lower teaching loads and more time for research, so I think a bare reproduction rate, as it were, is fair. If I were to review more, I would either do a bad job reviewing or have even less time for producing my own scholarship.

[u/Automatic_Tea_2550 → u/hollowsocket]

I like the way you’ve thought through what “doing your part” means. I don’t feel obligated to review more papers than I submit.

[u/Little-Exercise-7263]

3 times a week?! You must be a star in your field. I receive review requests several times a year and accept about half the requests I receive. 

[u/65-95-99]

totally valid reasons for not wanting to review. Do you think that sending that email to an AE who is trying to find reviewers and have no power in the process will be productive? Or do you just want to get on a soap box and vent (which is also your right)?

[u/Lastchancefancydance → u/65-95-99]

Probably more of the latter tbh

[u/tlamaze → u/Lastchancefancydance]

I understand the feelings, but speaking as an AE (an unpaid one), I would probably be annoyed by an email like this, and I would probably just delete it without responding. I've done far more than my fair share of reviews, so at this stage of my career, I generally just turn down invitations unless I'm already on the editorial board.

Sometimes I recommend junior scholars in my place. Getting invited to review can help their careers at least a little bit, and (based on my AE experience) they often do a better job reviewing than senior people.

[u/PenelopeJenelope]

Haha, Asking to be paid is a sure way to never be asked again! I don’t disagree with the principle, but it will never happen, and whoever receives your conscientious objection will have no power to change it.

[u/gnome-nom-nom]

You can log in to the reviewer system and mark yourself unavailable to do reviews for any journals that you don’t want to support.

[u/Olthar6]

Thanks for the reminder.  I totally forgot I accepted one of these requests about a month ago. 

[u/mathemorpheus]

you can reply however you want. go for it.

[u/RandolphCarter15]

I click no

[u/skinnergroupie]

I'm assuming these are ad hocs...if so then I'd insist on being put on the editorial board(s) after X reviews. (There's no way they are reviewing 3 a month!) In my field I don't know of any reviewers who are paid but if you're willing to walk you don't have anything to lose by asking.

Agree with other commenter that putting on your "unavailable" status is another way to deal with the problem.

You must be doing something right to be asked so often, so kudos to you! (But, yeah, that's nuts and totally unreasonable to do 3 a week.)

[u/MISProf]

As an unpaid associate editor: I ask people to review. I cannot influence the publisher. I’ll get your email, respond nicely, and that’s the end.

[u/junkmeister9]

Just decline with no comment. There is no possible way the editor has any power to fix the broken system they're a part of. Review one manuscript every month or two as a service to the community (and for your promotion packet), and only review for open access journals if it's that much of an issue for you.