On average, how many hours do you spend on each peer review?

Answer Explanations

• 2-4 hours

  user-849039
  Performing peer reviews has significantly improved my efficiency
• 2-4 hours

  user-829204
  depends on the topic and paper type
• 4-8 hours

  user-905834
  The timeline will depend on the topic and length of the paper.
• 2-4 hours 4-8 hours

  user-673903
  It really depends on how many revisions are needed and how well written the manuscript is.
• 2-4 hours

  user-703358
  Sometimes longer, rarely shorter except when it is an obvious rejection 
• 8-16 hours

  user-882784
  This question assesses the time a reviewer typically spends evaluating a research manuscript. Peer review is a critical process in scientific publishing, requiring careful analysis of a study’s methodology, data, and conclusions. The response options help platforms like SciPinion understand the depth of review conducted by each expert. "8-16 hours" suggests an in-depth review, often including fact-checking, cross-referencing sources, and providing extensive feedback.
  
  
• 4-8 hours

  user-439026
  I have read the paper roughly then read it another time deeply
• 4-8 hours

  user-573627
  Closer to 4
• Less than 2 hours

  user-832173
  I usually accept only peer review concerning my field of interest where I know the literature and I can work easily on it.
• 2-4 hours

  user-753537
  I think about 4 hours, I try to spend less time but once started i want to do it right
• 4-8 hours

  user-986977
  For thorough review
• 2-4 hours

  user-135565
  Time is depending on the nature of the article, I like to make sure of my review.
• Less than 2 hours

  user-558014
  Chose papers within. Y expertise area
• 2-4 hours

  user-640046
  2-6 hours
• 2-4 hours

  user-927405
  Yes
• 4-8 hours

  user-861466
  They vary from <2 hours for simpler items, to over 8 hours for grant applications and complex papers.
• 2-4 hours

  user-702431
  It takes time to read and check
• More than 16 hours

  user-331973
  To do a detailed  critical review and give a comprehensive report requires more than 24 hrs.
• More than 16 hours

  user-105846
  In general, a day or two are needed for the review process, however, in the case of a few articles it may take longer.
• 8-16 hours More than 16 hours

  user-879376
  Depends on the content, volume and intricacies. 
• 4-8 hours

  user-15180
  In depth review requires more than one reading of the paper and also checking existing literature for comparison of the state of the art. Details of the paper should be carefully checked. 
• 8-16 hours

  user-548125
  Sometimes I have to read the works cited in the text, sometimes I want to check something additionally and that's why it takes a lot of time
• 8-16 hours

  user-84898
  This will depend on the scope of the manuscript, but most papers in my field (molecular genetics) are highly technical and will require a substantial amount of time to provide useful and constructive reviewer feedback.
• 2-4 hours

  user-962329
  I need to be thorough in case I miss things on initial review. 
• 8-16 hours More than 16 hours

  user-861328
  I can review artciles in 8 hours, sometine more than 24 hours.
• 2-4 hours 4-8 hours

  user-103012
  I spend averagely 4 hours to review a an article.
• 4-8 hours

  user-980558
   A thorough peer review requires multiple readings of the manuscript, checking references, evaluating methodology, and providing constructive feedback. I take the time to ensure my comments are detailed, clear, and useful for both the authors and the journal. 
• 2-4 hours

  user-563401
  depending on the scope and area of paper, if its in my area it takes less time, otherwise a longer time.
• 4-8 hours 8-16 hours

  user-592268
  It depends sometimes about the topic of research, I've to suggest latest References/research citation, sometimes reading by myself to get the review process more improved. Normally I get to manage my time in 2-3 sittings with a good review.
• Less than 2 hours

  user-36719
  As I have limited experience while editorial ship of scientific journal 
• 4-8 hours

  user-943691
  A peer review needs substantial time. I prefer to sit for evaluating reviews for 4-8 hours during weekends and complete it one stretch. 
• 4-8 hours

  user-162700
  It is a lot of work if a person does it properly. It is a huge responsibility as well. 
• 4-8 hours

  user-25455
  split in 2-3 days
• 4-8 hours

  user-24419
  It's easy to review a well-written document.  The other require more time. 
• 8-16 hours

  user-60284
  Like to do  some up-Date on the subject before sending comments.
• 2-4 hours

  user-226593
  I spent 2-4 hours to review a manuscript 
• 8-16 hours

  sab2x
  Need to to a thorough job, often sleeping on it for an extra day to review again to see if you still agree with your own comments.
• 2-4 hours 4-8 hours

  user-123942
  Plagiarism cheque and improvement of the manuscript are main task.
• 4-8 hours

  user-863596
  I have review and suggest the authors about modification of almost all the subtitles if necessary
  I also suggest new references from other journals
• 2-4 hours

  user-161126
  It depends on the publication and the quality of the specific manuscript
• 4-8 hours

  user-316703
  Peer review is a rigorous process and takes a lot of time to evaluate and assess the manuscript as per the given criteria. 
• 2-4 hours

  user-90744
  For complete review of manuscript i spend 2 - 4 hrs on manuscript study them completely
• 2-4 hours 4-8 hours

  user-846904
  This depends on the manuscript length and topics. Short manuscripts can be read quickly and revision is quite fast, but some complicated stories may take time.
• 4-8 hours

  user-683654
  Depending on type, I spend between 5-8 hours. That enables me to do a thorough review. 
• 4-8 hours 8-16 hours

  user-401991
  Actually, it depends on the type and topic of the paper.
• 2-4 hours 4-8 hours

  user-485021
  It depends how long is the manuscript, whether is well written or not, whether the authors are native speakers of English or not. My reviews are very detailed. Based on the quality of my reviews, the editor of the journal selected me to be the topic editor. 
• More than 16 hours

  user-558408
  I am the Director of Scientific Review. 
• 4-8 hours

  user-880984

  Sometimes, even though it's my area, something new comes up that I need to study before giving my opinion, which increases my review time.

  
  
• 4-8 hours

  user-427123
  I spent at least 4 hours for each peer review. 
• 2-4 hours

  user-819455
  Always depends, if I am an expert in the area and really comfortable with the topic it takes much less time than one where it falls outside of my topic. 
• user-967014
  I have not worked as peer reviewer
• 8-16 hours

  user-333723
  On average, I spend approximately 8 to 16 hours on each peer review, depending on the complexity of the manuscript, the depth of analysis required, and the clarity of the writing. This includes reading the paper thoroughly, evaluating its methodology and findings, verifying references, and providing detailed, constructive feedback.