I think it is a nice to get some kind of reward for the work done, despite the vouchers being quite low. The largest benefit is being able to see the state of the research field and gather new insights into topics, methods and references I find interesting.

Is relevant to be a reviewer? Yes. But don't confine yourself.

What is the relevance to you for spending quality time doing reviews for that group to get voucher codes provided by MDPI group? Do you only want to submit papers for that group? Are you willing to give up your academic freedom and quality time for a few discounts on papers you may never submit there?

Dear Ian, your response regarding a judgement on MDPI group. However, my question regards another aspect! If is relevant for you to receive voucher codes when you conduct a review? In my opinion, it is not important. The first aspect that I analyse is the quality of a journal.

Idiano D'Adamo I agree. In my opinion, it is not important. (Cash would be nice though!)

I think it is a nice to get some kind of reward for the work done, despite the vouchers being quite low. The largest benefit is being able to see the state of the research field and gather new insights into topics, methods and references I find interesting.

It is referred to a paper. This question is originated because in the last 4 years I have completed the review process of about 90 paper only for MDPI group.

Being a reviewer is relevant. It gives you the opportunity to note others view about the subject being reviewed and be able to contribute to the idea being developed by others as well as air your view.

However, since every minute count in business, rewarding reviewer is not bad.

Estimado Idiano D'Adamo. No, no consideramos que sea "relevante" sino "esencial". Permíteme hacer referencia a nuestro trabajo de investigación que hemos realizado y que aparece en esta plataforma, a la cual intitulamos "Problemas y retos de la investigación en el siglo XXI. (El caso de la RIEMS), trabajo que versa sobre la "reforma educativa" que se trata de imponer en México en la educación media superior y superior, la cual atiende más a lo que Fisher (2016) denomina como "estalinismo de mercado" y no se preocupa por el elemento teleológico de la educación. Las universidades y las escuelas, nos señala Hedges (2011), ya no preparan a sus alumnos para el pensamiento crítico, no les enseñan a analizar y criticar los sistemas de poder y los presupuestos culturales y políticos, sino que han hecho un pacto Faustiano con el sistema, para que no cumplan con el elemento teleológico de la educación y sólo produzcan “gestores hiperespecializados del sistema”, emergiendo así “mentes dóciles” (Foucault, 2012), para ello se ha implementado la dichosa “reforma educativa” siendo todo menos una verdadera reforma que trascienda un nuestra “formación”, en la construcción de un método distinto al canónico, que responda a crear nuevas herramientas e instrumentos para navegar en estos océanos de incertidumbres, porque nuestros instrumentos y herramientas con las que solíamos navegar en los océanos del conocimiento han quedado obsoletos, Hace falta re-formar nuestras mentes, pero las políticas y nuestras autoridades educativas, sólo responden al sistema, y en esta “disolución de la lógica”, que a decir de Zemelman, la metodología canónica nos lleva a estudiar y/o investigar lo más importante de lo menos importante.

Esto sucede porque reformas como la RIEMS, pretenden suprimir disciplinas tan importantes como la “filosofía”, y en consecuencia ha privado a los niños –jóvenes en formación, de asignaturas sustanciales para su “formación” y como futuros investigadores que potencialmente lo son, como la misma lógica, la axiología, la ética, la estética, etc. Dando como resultado que estas mentes dóciles tengan un pensamiento elaborado con una “racionalización” y no con un “conocimiento pertinente” (Morin, 2013) basado en la “racionalidad”. Las universidades ya no se preocupan, ni se ocupan de formar mentes reflexicas, analíticas, criticas, sino como lo dice Morin (2005) los medios de comunicación producen la cretinización vulgar, y las universidades la alta cretinización.

Espero que esta reflexión aporte algo en tu cuestionamiento. Saludos.

¡Hasta Pronto!

Dear Idiano D'Adamo. No, we do not consider it "relevant" but "essential". Allow me to refer to our research work that we have done and that appears on this platform, which we entitled "Problems and challenges of research in the XXI century. (The case of the RIEMS), work that deals with the" educational reform "which is to impose in Mexico in higher and higher secondary education, which caters more to what Fisher (2016) calls" market Stalinism "and does not care about the teleological element of education.

Universities and schools, says Hedges (2011), no longer prepare their students for critical thinking, do not teach them to analyze and criticize power systems and cultural and political budgets, but have made a Faustian pact with the system, so that they do not comply with the teleological element of education and only produce "hyperspecialized managers of the system", thus emerging "docile minds" (Foucault, 2012), for which the blissful "educational reform" has been implemented, everything being less a true reform that transcends our "formation", in the construction of a method different from the canonical, that responds to create new tools and instruments to navigate in these oceans of uncertainty, because our instruments and tools with which we used to navigate in the oceans of knowledge have become obsolete,

It is necessary to re-form our minds, but the policies and our educational authorities only respond to the system, and in this "dissolution of logic", which, according to Zemelman, the canonical methodology leads us to study and / or investigate as much as possible. important of the least important.

This happens because reforms such as the RIEMS, aim to suppress disciplines as important as "philosophy", and consequently deprived children - young people in training, of substantial subjects for their "training" and as future researchers that potentially are, as the same logic, axiology, ethics, aesthetics, etc. As a result, these docile minds have an elaborated thought with a "rationalization" and not with a "relevant knowledge" (Morin, 2013) based on "rationality". Universities no longer worry, nor are they engaged in forming reflexive, analytical, critical minds, but as Morin says (2005) the media produce vulgar cretinization, and universities the high cretinization.

I hope that this reflection contributes something to your questioning. Greetings.

See you soon!

Being a reviewer gives you access to new ideas.It also allows you to contribute service work to the discipline. There would be no peer review without reviewers.

Good morning

For me is esencial

I contribute with a few magazines and for me it is very important

Ingrid

Dear Idiano, Thank you for your question. As you are aware, it has become too difficult to find the appropriate number of peer-reviewers to review manuscripts within the time frame, usually 2-3 weeks, recommended by the editor. As a solution, journals are now offering credits to editors and reviewers. The BMJ used to provide vouchers for the amount of EP 50 that you could use book from the publisher. Others like JMIR and MDPI are giving coupons that you can use when you submit your manuscript for publication (to help with the costs of processing fees of the open access journal related to the publisher). Other journals state the name of the editors and reviewers on the published article as a credit. Others send a certificate acknowledging your job. So I think they are all aim at encouraging reviewers and editors who devote their time and volunteer to take this scholarly responsibility. I hope my answer be of help.

Best regards, Prof S. Azer

Following ....

Getting a review assignment is recognition of your past works and ability to contribute to science of peers. It gives you a chance to impose your own thoughts and ideas into someone else works. I take review assignment very seriously and try to send comments before deadline. Although the monetary benefit of being a reviewer is negligible but the satisfaction of contributing towards science is always great.

I agree with my colleagues,

Although the economic benefit is not important, there are many reasons to be a reviewer. First, you will be able to receive first-hand information about your field, which is really important. Second, you contribute to improve the quality of published articles. And finally, once you start reviewing, it is really rewarding.