↓ Skip to main content

Recruitment of reviewers is becoming harder at some journals: a test of the influence of reviewer fatigue at six journals in ecology and evolution

Overview of attention for article published in Research Integrity and Peer Review, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#14 of 133)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
5 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
155 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
53 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Recruitment of reviewers is becoming harder at some journals: a test of the influence of reviewer fatigue at six journals in ecology and evolution
Published in
Research Integrity and Peer Review, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s41073-017-0027-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

Charles W. Fox, Arianne Y. K. Albert, Timothy H. Vines

Abstract

It is commonly reported by editors that it has become harder to recruit reviewers for peer review and that this is because individuals are being asked to review too often and are experiencing reviewer fatigue. However, evidence supporting these arguments is largely anecdotal. We examine responses of individuals to review invitations for six journals in ecology and evolution. The proportion of invitations that lead to a submitted review has been decreasing steadily over 13 years (2003-2015) for four of the six journals examined, with a cumulative effect that has been quite substantial (average decline from 56% of review invitations generating a review in 2003 to just 37% in 2015). The likelihood that an invitee agrees to review declines significantly with the number of invitations they receive in a year. However, the average number of invitations being sent to prospective reviewers and the proportion of individuals being invited more than once per year has not changed much over these 13 years, despite substantial increases in the total number of review invitations being sent by these journals-the reviewer base has expanded concomitant with this growth in review requests. The proportion of review invitations that lead to a review being submitted has been declining steadily for four of the six journals examined here, but reviewer fatigue is not likely the primary explanation for this decline.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 155 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 3 14%
Other 3 14%
Lecturer 2 9%
Researcher 2 9%
Librarian 1 5%
Other 4 18%
Unknown 7 32%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Environmental Science 3 14%
Computer Science 3 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 14%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 9%
Social Sciences 2 9%
Other 1 5%
Unknown 8 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 116. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 January 2024.
All research outputs
#362,356
of 25,529,543 outputs
Outputs from Research Integrity and Peer Review
#14
of 133 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#7,656
of 321,552 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Research Integrity and Peer Review
#1
of 3 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,529,543 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 133 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 76.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 321,552 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them