Demographic Portrait of Journal Reviewers

Reviewers’ Perceptions of the Peer Review Process in Journalism and Mass Communication

“…Motivations to review also appear unchanged since Endres and Wearden's (1990) study. The few rewards that respondents experience are related to an internal locus of responsibility, or as one respondent noted, there is "no incentive beyond professional obligation."…”

“…In the more than 25 years since the last comprehensive surveys of journalism and mass communication reviewers were done (Endres & Wearden, 1990; Leslie, 1990), little seems to have changed in terms of basic reviewer workload, despite anecdotal and cross-disciplinary survey data that suggest otherwise (Folan Consultancy, 2015). Although women now represent about half of all reviewers, compared with the male-dominated field of 1990, reviewers report performing about the same number of journal manuscript reviews (five) and spending about the same amount of time on them (about 3.5 hr), despite the increased number of journals and submissions to them.…”

“…Within mass communication, the most recent studies of who reviews are 25 years old, so the results must be viewed with caution. One found that journal reviewers tended to be White males in their 40s who received their doctorates from Research 1 universities and reviewed four to six journal manuscripts per year (Endres & Wearden, 1990). Another found they reviewed an average of 4.75 manuscripts a year, spending an average of 3.44 hr on each (Leslie, 1990).…”

“…Extrinsic rewards are few, however. Reviewing seldom counts toward promotion and tenure (Djupe, 2015) or merit pay calculations (Endres & Wearden, 1990). Tangible rewards, such as “pay per [re]view” and free journal subscriptions, have not been shown to improve review quality (Greenstein & Biglieri, 2009, p. 38; Kurdi, 2015), nor have awards or expedited review of reviewers’ own work (Kachewar & Sankaye, 2013; Willis, 2016).…”

“…Since the last half of the 1600s, peer review has served as the means of quality control and seal of scientific authenticity for academic work (Zuckerman & Merton, 1971). Few changes have been made to the basic process over time (Walker & Rocha da Silva, 2015), but the number of manuscripts needing review has grown exponentially because of increasing pressure on academics to present and publish and a concomitant 1 University of Oregon, Eugene, USA 2 Kansas State University, Manhattan, USA universities and reviewed four to six journal manuscripts per year (Endres & Wearden, 1990). Another found they reviewed an average of 4.75 manuscripts a year, spending an average of 3.44 hr on each (Leslie, 1990).…”