There is no single number that works for every researcher, but a useful starting point is to balance your peer review workload with publication activity, available time, field expectations, and the quality of each manuscript review.
The 2018 Global State of Peer Review report drew on a survey of more than 11,800 researchers and found growing pressure on the review system. Editors needed to send more invitations to secure completed reviews, while reviewers commonly declined because a manuscript was outside their expertise or they were too busy with their own research. The report also estimated a median of about five hours spent writing each review. Having a clearer framework for your reviewer workload can make it easier to decide when to accept an invitation and when declining is the more responsible choice.
How many peer reviews per year is reasonable?
For many active researchers, around six to twelve peer reviews per year can be a practical range, but it should be treated as a guide rather than a target. The right number depends on how demanding each manuscript review is, your research and teaching commitments, your career stage, and the complexity of the work you are being asked to assess.
A useful way to approach peer review responsibilities is to ask whether you can give each assignment the time and attention it requires. If accepting another invitation would mean rushing the review, missing the deadline, or giving less specific feedback, your peer review workload is probably already high enough.
How does reciprocity help set a reviewing target?
Reciprocity offers a useful starting point: researchers who benefit from peer review can also contribute to sustaining it. One commonly discussed rule of thumb is to complete roughly two to three reviews for every manuscript you publish, reflecting the fact that journal submissions generally draw on more than one reviewer. This is not a formal requirement across academic publishing, so it works better as a framework than as a quota.
A researcher publishing two or three articles in a year might therefore aim for around six reviews. Their actual reviewer workload may reasonably be lower or higher. Reciprocity also has clear limits. A short methods note and a complex clinical study can require very different amounts of work. Peer review responsibilities also vary by career stage, discipline, editorial expectations, and how frequently someone receives invitations.
The wider problem is that reviewing work is not distributed evenly. Publons reported that approximately 10% of reviewers in its data accounted for around 50% of recorded reviews. This concentration is one reason a personal reciprocity rule should not become an expectation that highly active reviewers continue accepting every invitation.
How does reviewer workload vary across fields?
Reviewer workload can differ considerably across disciplines because submission volumes, manuscript types, review timelines, and invitation patterns are different. The Publons data showed substantial variation in reviewing activity across research areas and regions. It also found differences in reviews completed per submission, which makes a single annual benchmark difficult to apply across every field.
A more useful comparison is with researchers at a similar career stage working in your area. If you are receiving or accepting substantially more invitations than comparable colleagues, consider whether those peer review responsibilities still fit realistically alongside the rest of your work.
When does peer review workload become too high?
Peer review workload becomes too high when the quality of your reviews begins to fall. Warning signs can include:
- Rushed reading,
- Increasingly generic comments
- Difficulty checking methods or references properly
- Repeated requests for deadline extensions
- Reports that are less detailed than the manuscript requires
The 2018 Publons report estimated a median of about five hours spent writing each review. Depending on the manuscript, the full process can involve additional time reading the work, checking sources or methods, and thinking through an editorial recommendation. This is why annual review numbers should never be separated from quality. Completing more assignments is useful only while every manuscript review remains careful, specific, constructive, and useful to the editor and authors.
How many reviews should early-career researchers accept?
Early-career researchers can reasonably start with two to four reviews in their first year and build from there as their confidence and efficiency develop. Beginning slowly gives you room to understand peer review responsibilities without taking on more assignments than you can evaluate properly. Reviewing can strengthen critical reading, provide insight into editorial decision-making, and help develop judgment about research design and reporting.
If you are new to the process, ReviewerOne’s guide on how to become a peer reviewer provides practical guidance on building experience, developing expertise, and accepting assignments responsibly. Early-career reviewers should also be selective. Accept a manuscript review when the subject fits your expertise, the deadline is realistic, and you can give the work appropriate attention. A sustainable peer review workload is more useful than accumulating a high number of reviews quickly.
Why should you document your peer review activity?
A consistent record of reviewing can make an otherwise largely invisible scholarly contribution easier to demonstrate. The Open Researcher and Contributor ID (ORCID) allows trusted organizations to add verified review activity to a researcher’s ORCID record with permission. Reviewers cannot simply add these verified peer review entries themselves.
Web of Science Reviewer Recognition similarly enables researchers to record verified reviewing contributions from participating journals and display them alongside other research achievements. Clarivate notes that these records can also be included in curriculum vitae documents for applications, promotion, grants, and tenure. ReviewerOne is designed around the same need for greater reviewer visibility. Reviewer profiles bring reviewing activity together with training and credentials, helping researchers build a more portable record of their contribution.
Key takeaways
There is no universal answer to how many peer reviews per year every researcher should complete. For many active researchers, around six to twelve reviews annually can provide a practical reference point, while early-career reviewers may prefer to begin with two to four and increase gradually.
Good peer review responsibilities need to be sustainable. The goal is not to maximize the number of reviews you complete. It is to contribute consistently without compromising the quality of your reviewing or your other research and professional responsibilities.
Try it live
ReviewerOne’s AI-assisted peer review platform supports reviewers with AI-powered checks while keeping expert judgment at the center of the review process. Sign up for ReviewerOne and use the AI Review Assistant to support a more structured and efficient manuscript review.
