I remember once upon a time in the early stages of my PhD wanting nothing more but to review papers for upcoming conferences. To me, it was one of the few rites of passage along the path to becoming an academic. Over a year has now passed since I started reviewing in an official capacity, I wonder, was it worth the wait?

Upsides

• You get to read the latest research in your chosen field before everyone else.
  
  
• Your views and expertise matter to someone other than your friends and family and it’s not like they have a choice anyways.
  
  
• Free name advertising in the proceedings, although it’s not like anyone ever looks at the conferences credits.

Downsides

• You don’t get paid.
  
  
• Reviews take time, usually 1-2 hrs per paper, maybe longer depending on the level of response required. IMO the mark of a good reviewer is someone who justifies their rating whether they are good or bad, a simple “it was crap so I didn’t read it” and “good read” isn’t exactly going to instill the author with confidence regarding the quality of the review.
  
• Sometimes you can end up writing a review that would make a paper in itself.

For me the jury is still out, the whole unpaid part doesn’t help matters much. But if I’ve learnt anything at all its how not to write a research paper, I mean I thought I was bad at writing, but some submissions, I would have recommended sealing in concrete and abandoning in the desert along with the author(s).

Mood [19:18] | Ring : N/A | ECG :N/A