Reviewers take years and months to submit reviews in Business and economics subjects while I'm told they do it within 2 months in science & engineering.
Do you think that reviewers should get paid, since the publishing houses are commercial enterprises ?
I did not know payments for reviewers or referees. They can do only justice, injustice, or declare themself unable of doing the review process. It is for loving to the art or the science. I would prefer a payment for any work, but the possibility of bad practices is high and if the editor is not very just it would have little injustices. But who is fidel in the few, is fidel in the much; and who is infidel in the few, is infidel in the much.
I vote for paying if the payer is honest. In other case, I prefer do not pay to reviewers or referees.
In any case, it depends of the available resources for the editor.
I know, IIM Bangalore, premier bus school in India, used to pay some token honorarium for the reviewers for their journal, IIM-B Management Review.
I think for the first two years of the publisher work, I vote for no paying. After the situation of publishing becomes stable, No revision without paying.
It depends upon the availability of resources as Mr Mariano Ruiz Espejo rightly said. Generally, it should not be, to keep work impartial.
Some journals pays to authors, referees, and editors. In Spain I know several.
In other countries the policy has been to treat well to the editor but do not treate well to the authors or the referees.
Yes I vote that reviewers must be paid for their review job. there are two reasons:
1. Most of the publishing enterprises are profit making.
2. This will motivate reviewers to perform their job honestly and timely.
Timely could be YES but, as far as honestly is concern I keep my finger crossed
Hello,
As an economist, I think all work should be paid, as a general principle...
So, if we think about the reviewing as a job to be done professioanly then yes, it should be paid,
but the reality is different now, and if even the authors are made to paid...
It's all about the barganing power on the publishing market....authors are at the bottom of this ladder, reviewers are... maybe a bit higher, but the top is occupied by the publishers and they create the rules...
I Think no good work without good paying, revising a paper is not easy task, it is very time consuming and time is money.Publishers run for money without proper regulations for gathering the money. As a result with no paying and massive requests for revision, the quality of most of the work becomes not good enough.
The problem with editors is that they are also appointed by publishers and depend on their will and money flows...
Even if some editors put pressure, then... they are many others waiting for this prestigous post...
Reviewing is an intellectually stimulating but time-consuming exercise. Reviewers in general might perceive that reviewing ought to be a paid-activity. I believe that publishers might do well to ask the reviewers if they would like to get paid for their services. At the same time, it needs to be appreciated that reviewing is a development-orientated exercise for experienced and in-experienced researchers. Ph.D candidates would immensely benefit from reviewing activities since it gives them an overview about the research in their domain. For experienced researchers, this activity may be very demanding on their time while they enjoy the intellectual stimulation. Publishers might consider offering an honorarium (the commercial stakes should not be too high!) for experienced researchers. Recognition of the reviewing members in one of the issues of the journal in a year would be a great motivating factor for many reviewers. Care should be taken to ensure that commercialisation of reviewing process does not dilute the academic standards of the publication.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Publishing