I'm a cognitive psychologist working in the Department of Otolaryngology at Washington University in Saint Louis. I study the neuroscience of speech comprehension, aging, and hearing impairment. For more on my research, please see my lab webpage.
I also have a courtesy appointment in the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, and am affiliated with the PNP program, Lingusitics program, and Department of Biology and Biomedical Sciences (DBBS).
Reviewing manuscripts is an important part of the scientific ecosystem and something we should all do. However, reviewing may not actually help our career all that much, and it's hard to know how much reviewing we should do relative to other activities. Here I suggest that early career scientists in particular should be careful not to review too much.
Regularly reviewing the things we are glad we are doing, the things we wish we weren't doing, and how to change these lists can be a tremendous benefit in keeping our lives on track. Here's a form to help make that happen.
To encourage each other to do better science, my lab has put together a checklist of goals and guidelines for scientific papers. Our focus is on encouraging best practices for open science and statistical rigor.
I've recently signed the Peer Reviewers' Openness Initiative (PRO). Here are some thoughts on why, and more generally on how we as reviewers can have a positive impact on science.
For archives or to subscribe via RSS, see http://jonathanpeelle.net/linked/