how do you become a reviewer for a journal?

somebody asked me recently how one gets to be a reviewer for a library-related journal. here’s how you can do it:

• to be a reviewer you have to have a publishing track record. what topics in librarianship do you care most about?  start writing about them and show your writing to as many people as can stand to look at it. this informal review process does great things for the quality of your manuscripts and also makes others aware of what you care about.  people remember these things.
• be an expert on a topic. it doesn’t matter what it is, but if you know a lot about x and have written about it, journal editors will think of you when they get a manuscript on that topic.
• find journals you care about. if you always dogear articles in a particular journal to read or think about later, this is a good sign.  do you agree with the journal’s mission?  as a reviewer you will be charged to evaluate manuscripts with that mission in mind, so it should jive with what you think is important.
• read up on who is on the editorial board for your favorite journals. do you know any of the members of the board? drop them a line and let them know you’d like to be considered as a reviewer, and specify in which areas you are competent.

the idea behind peer review is that your skill set or knowledge of a topic is broad enough that you can comment with ease on ideas broached in a manuscript.  it means that you keep up with literature in the area of your interest and will be able to discern high quality from low quality in this area.  the goal of the peer review process is to be able to further the body of literature in an area.

leave a comment if you’ve got other suggestions to share about how to position yourself to become a reviewer.