onas Ranstam is a peer-review machine.

Ranstam, a medical physicist in Sweden, reviewed 661 papers across 16 scientific fields between Oct. 1, 2015 and Sept. 17 of this year — nearly two per day over that period.

A year ago, such output might have earned Ranstam perhaps a note or two of thanks from the editors whose journals he served. Today, however, he got a bit more — the title of the world’s top peer reviewer.


The inaugural Sentinel of Science awards are the creation of Publons, a UK company that wants to give peer review a bit more luster by showcasing the contributions of reviewers. Publons created the prizes “to honour the expert peer reviewers and editors who stand guard over research quality, and lead the charge for better, faster science.”

That is a positive sign. Peer reviewers are almost entirely uncompensated and usually anonymous, but they play a crucial role in science’s self-correcting process. In recent years, more journals are experimenting with ways to acknowledge these volunteers more prominently.

The financial component of the Publons award is modest. Out of a $2,250 pot Ranstam will receive $250, along with a $1,000 voucher to publish in a journal put out by Thieme, an open-access publisher. On the editor side, the award went to Jose Florencio Lapeña, a pediatric head and neck surgeon at the University of the Philippines who, as a journal editor and member of some editorial boards, handled the most papers during the year. Lapeña will receive $100 cash and a $200 credit with Wiley.

Publons also awards digital “badges” to reviewers who earn a certain level of “merit” points through their reviews; those points can come from publishing the content of their review, or by having their reviews up-voted.

The tallies themselves come from a sort of report-and-verify system. Researchers sign up for Publons, and add review records to their profiles on the site. Publons then works with publishers to verify that they were actually done as claimed. Only verified reviews were counted in the awards, Publons tells us.

Part of Ranstam’s prolific output might owe to his current professional circumstances. Ranstam, who left a position at Lund University several years ago to work as a freelance statistician, said he does his reviewing in the morning, then spends the afternoon on his own projects. “I often work in the evening and usually on Saturdays, but this is a structure that suits me and my wife. My salary is lower, but my quality of life much higher.”

That flexibility means Ranstam can devote more time to what he has long considered a crucial part of the scientific process. At the same time, he worries that attaching financial gain and social praise to the process could dilute the quality of reviews over the long run. Indeed, rewarding quantity may solve short-term needs but be dangerous in the long-term.

“I believe that it is increasingly difficult to find reviewers for the growing number of manuscripts that are submitted, and that awarding reviewers can be a way to raise the interest for reviewing. This would of course be good if it succeeded,” Ranstam told STAT. “On the other hand, it is well-known that rewards change motivation, and this could perhaps be bad. Voluntary contributions have a special value. Will reviews from reviewers pressed to review by competition with colleagues have the same quality and relevance?”

Publons is not alone in trying to find ways of hat-tipping reviewers. The New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical Association, have been issuing shout-outs to reviewers for years. Elsevier will begin recognizing those who get reviews in on time. The journal Collabra is making money part of the recognition by giving small payments to authors and editors either in cash or in credits against future publication fees. And the UK publisher Veruscript says it will pay its reviewers, too.


Sign up for our First Opinion newsletter

Please enter a valid email address.

And Publons’s inaugural awards lineup does have some shortcomings. Although the list of Sentinels is international, it’s plagued by an alarming lack of gender diversity. Publons tells us they didn’t collect gender data, but by our count, only 1 of the 44 named winners, Ana-Maria Florea, a cell biologist in Germany, is a woman. Whether that’s because men are overrepresented at Publons, among peer reviewers, or both, we’re not sure, but it sure would be good to recognize more women for the reviews they do.

For Ranstam — and, presumably, other high-volume reviewers — although recognition for the efforts is gratifying, the process has its own rewards. Ranstam says reading all those articles is a good way for him to stay up on the literature and keep his own skills sharp. “And it may seem strange, but to understand the underlying causes or reasons for a methodological misunderstanding, and trying to explain this to the author, is personally developing. I would have been a much better lecturer 20 years ago, if I then had had the reviewing experience I have now.”

Leave a Comment

Please enter your name.
Please enter a comment.

  • What is the peer-review literature?
    Wikipedia took the idea of peer-review and applied it to volunteers on a global scale, becoming the most important English reference work in less than 10 years. Yet the cumulative time devoted to creating Wikipedia, something like 100 million hours of human thought, is expended by Americans every weekend, just watching ads. Science advances by trial and error. When mistakes are made, the peer-review publication process usually roots them out. Cuccinelli’s version of the scientific process would be “make an error and go to trial.” Einstein did not arrive at E=mc2 in his first attempt. If he were working in the state of Virginia under Cuccinelli today, he could be jailed for his initial mistakes and perhaps never achieve that landmark equation. So I see, peer-review is a serious exam which can re-evaluate your abilities each time you have been offered to review an article. However, you can say “thanks, I can’t” if the topic doesn’t belong to the field of your expertise.
    Before Publons, reviewers were doing their tasks of reviews as Palaeolithic as the ones trying to discover the peer-review dredge. However, the files of the reviewers are collated by Publons which initiates the spirit of rival between researchers.
    The main challenges for a reviewer in peer reviewing:
    – Knowing the field to which a certain manuscript belongs very well.
    – Having experience in reviewing manuscripts.
    – Having abilities to make reviewer’s remarks clear.
    – Having enough time to evaluate the manuscript in depth.
    – Obeying the editorial deadline for doing a review.
    – Having a strong interest in scholarly journals.
    – Being fluent in English.”
    However, the worst problem of peer reviewing is its time-consuming nature.

  • …. “But recognizing peer review is a worthy cause: The labor it takes to peer review science papers would cost a couple billion dollars a year, if the reviewers were paid for their time, which they almost never are.” – This quote in SLATE speaks volumes of the role of reviewer

  • 2 reviews per day! 16 different fields! Although very impressive, I am very concerned about the quality of these reviews and so should be the editors.

    • I also found it weird that the article didn’t bring this up. It might be understandable if Ranstam only focuses on the statistcal aspect of the studies, going through the numbers might be his morning sudoku.

  • Great point about diversity. Our analysis suggests between 20-25% of reviewers in the top 10% for each field are female (this isn’t perfect as we don’t ask researchers to disclose their gender when they sign up). We’d love to see more women getting recognition for their expert reviewing efforts across the world’s journals. Hopefully more begin to track their review contributions on Publons – the largest cross-publisher reviewer platform – so we can give everyone involved the recognition they deserve.

Sign up for our Morning Rounds newsletter

Your daily dose of news in health and medicine.