ArticleResearch integrity and peer review2017
Recruitment of reviewers is becoming harder at some journals: a test of the influence of reviewer fatigue at six journals in ecology and evolution.
Article in Research integrity and peer review, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
28 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence in Veterinary Peer Review: Advancing Rigor or Raising New Concerns?Veterinary medicine and science · 2026Article
- Motivations and barriers to engaging in peer review: a qualitative study.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Article
- A transparent universal credit system to incentivize peer review.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- Paying peer reviewers: benefits, risks, and challenges.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Review
- Screening, sorting, and the feedback cycles that imperil peer review.PLoS biology · 2026Article
- Evaluating large language models for abstract evaluation tasks: an empirical study.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2026Article
- Reviewers are better equipped to detect fraud than editors.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- AI in peer review: can artificial intelligence be an ally in reducing gender and geographical gaps in peer review? A randomized trial.Research integrity and peer review · 2025Article
- On improving the sustainability of peer review.PLoS biology · 2025Article
- Questionnaire survey for the International Journal of Legal Medicine on the occassion of the 26th triennal meeting of the International Academy of Legal Medicine.International journal of legal medicine · 2025Article
- Behind the scenes: exploring neurological journal editors' work habits, decisions, and potential sources of conflict of interest.Journal of neurology · 2024Article
- Publishing during a Pandemic: Analyzing Recent Publication Times in Hand Surgery.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2024Article
- "It is becoming increasingly difficult to find reviewers"-myths and facts about peer review.Journal of comparative physiology. A, Neuroethology, sensory, neural, and behavioral physiology · 2024Article
- Peer reviewers' willingness to review, their recommendations and quality of reviews after the Finnish Medical Journal switched from single-blind to double-blind peer review.Research integrity and peer review · 2023Article
- Peer Review in a General Medical Research Journal Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- Improving equity, diversity, and inclusion in academia.Research integrity and peer review · 2022Article
- Editorial Work and the Peer Review Economy of STS Journals.Science, technology & human values · 2022Article
- What works for peer review and decision-making in research funding: a realist synthesis.Research integrity and peer review · 2022Article
- The challenge of recruiting peer reviewers from one medical journal's perspective.Proceedings (Baylor University. Medical Center) · 2022Article
- 'Science by consensus' impedes scientific creativity and progress: A simple alternative to funding biomedical research.F1000Research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIt 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. MAIN BODY: 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.
conclusionsThe 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.