Unless the whole idea is to just make make hefty sums of money, under the claim of Impacted quality and a use of flagrant double standard, reviewers ought to be paid by publishers requiring hefty APC, using their time.
May I refer the respected reader to this article and Publons site for further reference!
http://www.nature.com/news/the-scientists-who-get-credit-for-peer-review-1.16102
https://publons.com/account/login/?next=/author/edit/#profile-settings
This is a good question with lots of possible answers.
The short answer is: No.
Reviewers should not be paid, since that tends to create a conflict of interest for the reviewer, whose review might be influenced by the fact a review is in exchange for payment. Personally, I think that a researcher's time is priceless. We write reviews of papers in our research area to help other researchers and to guarantee very high integrity of submitted papers.
I agree with Fethi on the issue of paying an honorarium to reviewers by journals which charge for publication. Now, periodicals have become a business, and apparently a profitable one. Today, we see more and more journals being introduced to the research community. If such journals treats research publication as a profit-earning business, then they should not utilize the reviewers' valuable time to their interest, and ought to pay them.
On the other hand, I partially agree with Jemes on the issue of considering reviewers' time priceless and therefore should not be paid, but if this is dedicated only to non-profit journals. In my opinion, if reviewers refrain from handling reviews for those pay-to-publish journals, then the integrity and quality of research will be restored, and only good journals will survive.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- References