Let us have some consideration for the lowly reviewer

Published 2014. This article is a U.S. Governmen and is in the public domain in the USA. Scientific publishing represents a three-component collaborative process consisting of the author(s), the journal (editor), and the technical reviewer(s). In terms of the benefits received, the process should be analogous to a three-legged stool. Unfortunately, all the legs on the publication stool are not the same length, which results in both an uncomfortable as well as an unstable seat for technical reviewers. The traditional journal benefits from the author(s) output because it provides a usable product that the journal sells for a profit. In today’s world of publication metrics, if a paper is well cited, it improves the impact factor of the journal, which makes purchasing the journal (or having access to it) more desirable. Of course, the scientific community also benefits because the papers advance the science, as well as provide information that working professionals can use on problems/issues they may have to address. The author(s) also benefit from the process. The journal provides a platform that lets others in the field know what they are doing. Publication provides stature for the author(s) that ultimately can lead to recognition, promotion and higher salaries. The publication of a scientific contribution also provides self-satisfaction, at least to those not too jaded by the process. I am sure most of us still remember when our first paper was published, and still relish seeing our names in print. The third component of the process, the technical reviewer(s), ensures that papers submitted to a journal meet acceptable editorial and technical criteria. Other than the opportunity to read/learn something new ahead of the rest of the scientific community, technical reviewers obtain no direct benefits from the process. Despite this lack, I always considered reviewing part of the business of being a working scientist. If I do not review papers to assure their quality, why should I expect others to do the same when I submit a paper for publication; without competent reviews, the entire process falls apart. Good technical reviewing requires commitment from the reviewer. Based on personal experience, a thorough review of a 30–40 page double-spaced manuscript can take the better part of a day, even with today’s electronic communications. I prefer to print out the paper, check the citations, and then, while reading the manuscript, make marginal notes relative to editorial and technical issues. I then have to transfer those comments to an electronic form, check that I have clearly made the points I think are important, and then transmit the package back to the journal (editor). As noted, there are few if any tangible benefits for technical reviewing, and the process takes time. As a result, it should be incumbent on both the author(s) and the journal (editor) to make the process as aggravation-free as possible. If nothing else, both the author(s) and the editor should remember that an annoyed reviewer is unlikely to be particularly patient or generous with a manuscript. There are several things an editor can do to facilitate the review process. The review request normally transmits a title and an abstract. Most reviewers also would like to know the manuscript’s length; why is this information withheld? We are all busy people, and a manuscript’s length