It is important to find a means to incorporate reviewing activities into the assessment of scientific performance, alongside conventional measures (Nature 465, 870–872; 2010).
Reviewing manuscripts is considered as a non-research task and is hard to reward. The Second International Symposium on Peer Reviewing, held last week in Florida, met to discuss how to overcome this gap (see http://www.sysconfer.org/ispr). Key topics included how to assess editors and publishers, as well as reviewers, and how to increase the reliability and value of peer review.
The way in which we evaluate other scientists' work through fair, helpful and critical analysis is essential to science and deserves better recognition.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
See also Metrics: journal's impact factor skewed by a single paper.
See also Metrics: don't dismiss journals with a low impact factor.
Contributions to Correspondence may be submitted to correspondence@nature.com after consulting the author guidelines at http://go.nature.com/cMCHno . Readers can now comment online on everything published in Nature http://www.nature.com/nature .
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Cintas, P., Paoletti, E. Metrics: include refereeing as part of performance rating. Nature 466, 179 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1038/466179d
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/466179d