peer review - Can reviewing papers help increase your credibility as a researcher?

I was wondering if reviewing papers for established journals was a way to increase ones credibility as a researcher?

My question is related to the fact that the journal editors, that are (frequently) known scientists in your domain, will read the review you made.

I was wondering if we can therefore assume that they will, to some degree, evaluate your reviewing work, and therefore yourself as a scientist, based on your review? Lets imagine I know the editor, and I might want to have a position in his/her lab, then my reviewing work might weight in my evaluation?

Answer

Just to add to the other answers with some other points to think about in terms of profile:

• 
  

  Reviewers for conferences are often made explicit as Programme Committee members. People who do good work in the PC eventually become Senior Programme Committee members, then Track Chairs, then Programme Chairs, then General Chairs, etc. Even PC membership for good conferences helps your academic profile, where higher-up positions help even more.

  
  


• 
  

  Journals work a little differently since reviews are solicited directly and are typically not noted anywhere public (with the exception of some journals employing a transparent peer-review model). But in my case, I was invited to the Editorial Board of a new journal in my area on the basis of my reviewing work for them. If you do good reviews, editors will notice. (Of course, this might not always result in an EB membership, but ...)

  
  


• 
  

  Conferences and journals (at least in CS) sometimes award "Best Reviewer" awards. I've picked up a couple of these and they look good in CVs.

  
  

Of course, reviewing in a community is an excellent way of keeping your finger on the pulse of not only what are the hot topics, but how papers in the area are evaluated (this is esp. true for serving in committees of conferences where seeing how the sausages are made is an enlightening experience).

(And on a more philosophical note: I always saw reviewing a bit like seeding in Bittorrent. Submitting lots of papers for review but never doing reviews is plain greedy. Complaining about the quality of the reviews you get and then doing crappy reviews is hypocritical. ... not so related to the question, but it's good to vent now and again.)