Senior researchers have seen and experienced a lot. In terms of how research ideas are chosen, funded, conducted, assessed, promoted,… Typically in several countries and/or teams. Therefore, they have a better perspective to evaluate:
- PhD thesis
- Applicants to job posts
- Career promotions
- Research projects and networks
- And even groups and departments (yes, they are also evaluated from time to time).
- …
For instance, when evaluating a PhD, a senior researcher will be better prepared to evaluate not only the actual contributions but the context of the research (i.e. how does the PhD results compare to what the group where the PhD has been done typically publish). Or when evaluating a group or projects, you can better balance the research results with other types of results (e.g. societal impact) and correct both based on the economic context of the country and its research budget.
So, I’m not saying senior researchers should never review papers but I’m indeed saying their reviewing/community service duties could be better used in these other types of reviews.
Of course, at the group level, they should still make sure they cover the work they generate with their submissions, so the group as a whole should still review papers.
By the way, if workshops became again what a workshop was supposed to be, and we would stop reviewing workshop papers (beyond a quick glance to checkt the paper is in the scope of the workshop), that would save us already thousands of reviews every year.
So, next time I decline your reviewing invitation, don’t immediately think I’m an asshole, think that I may be putting my community time on other tasks that I believe I’m more uniquely qualified to help with.
