1

This question was closed as being primarily opinion-based. The question originally asked "how much time do you spend on reviewing a paper?". Put this way, the question was a bad fit for the Q&A, because it amounted to a poll (although, strictly speaking, it wasn't opinion-based).

I've edited the question to focus on the aspect that is of more general relevance, and which arguably was also what OP intended to ask: "How much time should you spend on reviewing a paper?". I gave an answer based on an objective criterion, namely that the time should be appropriate to the task. This clearly is not primarily opinion based. Moreover, we have several open questions asking whether this or that is "ethical". I feel, if these questions are not primarily opinion-based, neither is the present question.

I had hoped to read other answers to this obviously relevant and important question. It should be reopened.

| |
  • 1
    I was one of the initial close-voters, but after your edits I've already voted to reopen. – Massimo Ortolano♦ Dec 20 '18 at 12:15
  • 3
    We already have existing questions How much time should I spend on reviewing a paper? and How much time should one spend refereeing a paper?, if these are distinct enough to remain separate then maybe we should edit the titles to clarify the distinctions. – ff524♦ Dec 20 '18 at 14:54
  • 1
    @ff524 I didn't catch these questions. They indeed look like dupes to me. So I guess the question should remain closed, but with a link to the duplicates. – henning -- reinstate Monica Dec 20 '18 at 15:23
  • 1
    I concur that the question should be closed as a duplicate of one of those others, rather than either remaining closed as opinion-based or being reopened. – Bryan Krause Dec 20 '18 at 15:41

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .