What percentage of peer reviews you receive would you rate as high quality (thorough, constructive, well-reasoned)?

Answer Explanations

• 60-79%

  user-45613
  Once in a while reviewers, even recommended by the authors, play politics rather than providing honest reviews.
• 40-59%

  user-958242
  These are high quality only.Rest are more or same as research reported previously with no new message.
• 40-59%

  user-858214
  Usually, a lot of issues that need to be covered, reviewers left uncovered. Due to this the reviews look too short
• 60-79%

  user-92202
  Although I am on the editorial board of only one journal, as I am still young in the research field, several high-impact journals already require me to peer-review articles submitted by other authors in areas such as physiology, ecophysiology, environmental science, oceanography, and aquatic pollution. As part of my role as an editorial board member, I consider it essential to carefully review and detect potential gaps in research in order to enable the publication of articles with high scientific validity.
  Based on my experience, I would estimate that around 60-79% of the peer reviews I receive are of high quality that is, thorough, constructive, and well-reasoned. These reviews are particularly valuable because they not only highlight weaknesses but also provide concrete suggestions for improvement. The remaining reviews are sometimes more superficial or limited in scope, but still contribute to the revision process, nevertheless needing more attention. Overall, I find that the peer-review system works effectively in ensuring the quality and reliability of published research, although it might probably be necessary to implement the system with rewards or something similar to avoid the superficiality of some reviews.
  
  
• 60-79%

  user-617662
  Lately I receive quite some reviews which are clearly written by AI. So two years ago the percentage was higher.
• 60-79%

  user-441445
  My reviewers are known to me and they are usually quite responsible for the quality of reviews.
• 20-39%

  user-916060
  Sometimes, I get recommendation to publish, with an empty review. 
• 20-39%

  user-974985
  Since I belong to the older generation of scientists, I am aware of the young people's perception of scientific work, the pressure that every manuscript submitted should be published, but this leads to confusion, the publication of false information that confuses even AI. Another, equally big problem is biased or even collusive citations that marginalize real discoveries and original works. This is the reason for the decreasing percentage of in-depth and serious reviews that aim to help authors and, on the other hand, to preserve the integrity of science as the greatest value.
• 60-79%

  user-709065
  NOT APPLICABLE