Is there a need for systematic education on peer-reviewing in Serbia?

Main Article Content

Ivana Drvenica
Aleksandar Dekanski
Nevena Buđevac
Ivan Umeljić
Olgica Nedić


The rate of scientific information generation has increased tremendously in the last few years as a result of the increase in both the number of researchers, studies and papers, and the number of scientific journals. In 2015, approximately 1.3 million articles were submitted to Elsevier journals by 1.8 million authors (it is estimated that there were 7.8 million active researchers worldwide in that year). The number of reviewers who evaluated these manuscripts were 0.7 million. According to the survey conducted by Wiley in 2015, 22 million research hours was spent annually for reviewing for the top 12 producing publishers. The most recent data released by Clarivate Analytics in 2017 estimate that 2 million scientific reports are published annually, imposing a large demand for the increase in the peer-review capacity to manage all scientific contributions. An additional complication is that the burden of peer-reviewing falls disproportionately on academics from the US and Europe, since researchers from Asia, Africa and South America are rarely called to act as peer-reviewers 


Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Drvenica, I., Dekanski, A., Buđevac, N., Umeljić, I., & Nedić, O. (2019). Is there a need for systematic education on peer-reviewing in Serbia?. HEMIJSKA INDUSTRIJA (Chemical Industry), 73(5), 275–279.


Elsevier,, Accessed October 10, 2019.

Warne V. Rewarding reviewers – sense or sensibility? A Wiley study explained. Learn Publ, 2016;29 (1): 41-50.

Clarivate Analytics,, Accessed 1 October, 2019.

The Guardian,, Accessed 15 October 2019.

Kovanis M, Porcher R, Ravaud P, Trinquart L. The Global Burden of Journal Peer Review in the Biomedical Literature: Strong Imbalance in the Collective Enterprise. PLoS ONE, 2016; 11(11): e0166387.

Publons,, Accessed 10 October 2019.

Science Open,, Accessed 10 October 2019.

Reviewer Credits,, Accessed 10 October 2019.

Callaham ML, Tercier J. The relationship of previous training and experience of journal peer reviewers to subsequent review quality. PLoS Med. 2007; 4: e40.

Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, Godlee F, Osorio L, Smith R. What errors do peer reviewers detect, and does training improve their ability to detect them? JR Soc Med. 2008; 101: 507-514.

Schroter S, Black N, Evans S, Carpenter J, Godlee F, Smith R. Effects of training on quality of peer review: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2004;328(7441):673.

Callaham M, McCulloch C. Longitudinal Trends in the Performance of Scientific Peer Reviewers, Ann Emerg Med. 2011; 57 (2) 141-148.

Patel J. Why training and specialization is needed for peer review: a case study of peer review for randomized controlled trials. BMC Med 2014, 12:128.

Dekanski A, Drvenica I, Nedić O. Peer-review process in journals dealing with chemistry and related subjects published in Serbia. Chem Ind Chem Eng Q . 2016; 22 (4): 491−501.

COST action TD1306: New Frontiers of Peer Review (PEERE),, Accessed 15 October 2019.

Centar za promociju nauke,, Accessed 15 October 2019.

Konzorcijum biblioteka Srbije za objedinjenu nabavku, KoBSON,, Accessed 15 October, 2019.