Peer Review Week 2024: 96% of reviewers rate their experience as ‘Good’ or ‘Excellent’

Here are the key findings from the survey:

High reviewer satisfaction

96% of respondents rather their experience reviewing with us as either ‘Good’ or ‘Excellent’.

“Overall, I felt that I could write a thorough and constructive review, and that the editor took my comments seriously” – ­Reviewer, Microbial Genomics

“All the journals I regularly review for have very high standards and professionalism” – Reviewer, Microbiology, Internation Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology, Journal of Medical Microbiology.

Strong engagement beyond reviewing

70% of reviewers have also submitted their work to one or more of our journals. Furthermore, 33% of reviewers have been recipients of one of our grants or have attended a Microbiology Society event.

“I feel part of a community” – Reviewer, Journal of General Virology

“Working for the benefit of the society is very good, and is why I give support as reviewer, author and editor” – Reviewer, Microbial Genomics

Motivations for reviewing

The survey revealed that the most motivating factor is ‘interest in the journal’ they are reviewing for. This was closely followed by a desire to ‘support the activities of the Microbiology Society’. On the flip side, the least motivating factor for reviewing was the prospect of receiving ‘in-kind benefits’ such as APC discounts or cash rewards.

“Reviewer requests are well matched with my interests and expertise” – Reviewer, Journal of Medical Microbiology

“The selection of manuscripts that fits in my personal field is somewhat better than from other journals. So the editors do good work” – Reviewer, Microbiology & Journal of Medical Microbiology

Helpful reviewer guidelines

Finally, we are pleased to report that the majority of respondents found our reviewer guidelines to be useful in navigating the peer-review process. We will continue to review and update these as and when our reviewing process evolves.