Reviews

Academia is laden with reviews. I am regularly reviewed (that's not quite true as my former boss was not one to let work get in the way of something else) and mostly that's to have someone then decide if I am meeting my job requirements. Usually I am somewhat over, but when you are over the system will find ways to make that not count, but if you are under then things always count. The whole counting/not counting thing is a tangent, but the summary is that you are required to keep working with people who are not paying to be worked with and because they are not paying they don't count for your workload. Not sure where else this would seem reasonable, but keep an eye out for that if you go to an interview and discuss workload.

We also review. A lot. I have to review my students' work, I have to review their progress, I have to review other people's students' work and other people's students' progress. Sometimes this makes sense, sometimes less so. If I were to conclude that someone wasn't making enough progress to proceed with their studies that doesn't do anything, someone else reviews the review and makes a decision (but the responsibility remains mine).

We also review other people's work when they submit it to a journal. We don't get paid for this, you do it for the good of the science. It does mean that you get to see papers before they are in print and before they have been accepted, which can be a real thrill, finding out things before other people find out things.

It is an interesting process and as it is part of what forensic psychologists in academia do it's worth a think.

The process is typically an unexpected email asking if you would consider reviewing a paper for a given journal, and usually you receive the abstract and title. These can be a little misleading as a good abstract concentrates the exciting parts of the work, ignores the dull and complicated bits, so you get an intense hit of research brilliance, which might not be that close to the reality of the papers. Agree and you get a link to the paper. Refuse at your peril. The first thing that usually happens is you are asked why you can't do it ("because you don't pay" is never a response option) and then to identify other people who you might recommend. I confess I never do this part. I am not getting paid or getting the kudos of being the journal editor so I am not going to do their work. Sometimes a paper seems really interesting, but it is out of your area, so do you have the expertise to review it and should you be using the time to satisfy your curiosity? Lack of expertise is a disservice to the authors, time is taken away from dog walks, riffage, and episodes of Prodigal Son.