Thanks to Adasa Nkrumah for raising this crucial concern and thanks also to Cory Jensen for your stellar response to this question. I have commented in several forums on why review process of manuscripts should not take even up to six months. It's disheartening to have a paper in review for years and I guess every author holds a similar view. However, this is the root cause of this: as authors, we have created this ditch ourselves. Every author wants his/her papers to be handled on time but we are not ready to accept review assignments from journal editors. As an Associate Editor of a reputable journal, I have requested as many as 24 potential reviewers to assess a single manuscript but I am still struggling to find just two to accept my call. In this process, I have delayed the authors for about four months without a decision on this manuscript. I think we have become our own enemies. I suggest that authors should assist editors in providing comments on paper on time. If this happens, their colleague authors will have decisions on their papers as expected.

I am not sure, "paid to review" will be the way to go. I think this approach could potentially compromise the process - shoddy work will be done as far as reviews are concerned. Rewards like certificates, coupons, published acknowledgment of review at journals' website, etc would be better. In this case, scholars will review out of goodwill, deliver their best of reviews but not because of material benefits.

In one of my cases the journal was changing the publication house.

Sometimes the reviewers do late.

And sometimes the editorial team.

But the most annoying is they don't reply of our mail.

Adasa - payment would provide incentive for many - but I don't think that it would make the process any quicker. It would just be a nominal payment. There is then always the risk that people 'sign up' to review for the money - rather than for the egalitarian reasons.

Thank you very much for the response. As experienced reviewer why does it take so long to deliver a review report. Beside the usual busy work style?

Some journals (Such as JMIR) are offering coupons that can be used by reviewers when they publish their manuscripts. It will help in reducing the processing fees they have to pay for their publication.

Adasa Nkrumah , you bring up a great point about the time for review. There is really no reason why the process should take over a year. I think that sharing the time frames for review could help communities and researchers identify good practices. A formal forum where this could be discussed would be a great idea.

Traditionally the peer review process is one of merit and right of passage trial (so to speak) as part of the formal research training process. Could a payment system take away from the credibility of this process, or is the flood of poor review practices already doing that?

Thanks to Adasa Nkrumah for raising this crucial concern and thanks also to Cory Jensen for your stellar response to this question. I have commented in several forums on why review process of manuscripts should not take even up to six months. It's disheartening to have a paper in review for years and I guess every author holds a similar view. However, this is the root cause of this: as authors, we have created this ditch ourselves. Every author wants his/her papers to be handled on time but we are not ready to accept review assignments from journal editors. As an Associate Editor of a reputable journal, I have requested as many as 24 potential reviewers to assess a single manuscript but I am still struggling to find just two to accept my call. In this process, I have delayed the authors for about four months without a decision on this manuscript. I think we have become our own enemies. I suggest that authors should assist editors in providing comments on paper on time. If this happens, their colleague authors will have decisions on their papers as expected.

I am not sure, "paid to review" will be the way to go. I think this approach could potentially compromise the process - shoddy work will be done as far as reviews are concerned. Rewards like certificates, coupons, published acknowledgment of review at journals' website, etc would be better. In this case, scholars will review out of goodwill, deliver their best of reviews but not because of material benefits.

This is awesome I know some journals occasionally publish the names of their reviewers to acknowledge them Razak M Gyasi

I do not think, payment might improve the situation. In universities, there is a system of payment for the script examiners. Despite the payment system, many of the teachers do not examine the script in time and do not return the examined script to the concerned authority in due time. How will you explain it?

It depends on the attitude and responsibility of the concerned persons.

Mothanna Sh. Aziz What don't you think so? We are trying to offer our best views on this all-important concern so that we all can benefit as academics and your response is just "I don't think so?" What are you talking about anyway? Please, come back again and provide and contribute to the discussion substantially if you actually meant to do so!

Yeah Paying cash makes them stick to the times

i dont think so. they even can accept review for money and offer a bad weak review

There may be many reasons. In my own case, I have been unwell for a period that put me behind on projects; however, I have always tried to meet my responsibilities as best I could under such circumstances. In my recommendations, I will mention any shortcomings of mine that may have resulted in a researcher's performance.

Razak M Gyasi I think there is something going on here on RG. Certain persons from one particular region (country) have flooded RG and merely want to write “anything” as answer. Perhaps to increase their score. Such persons seem to have no knowledge of a discussion but put “anything “.

I don't think 'paying reviewers' is the way forward. It would lead to even further compromises in the review process. I agree with Razak M Gyasi on journals issuing certificates, coupons etc to reviewers to acknowledge their efforts. Meticulous reviews may also be published from time-to-time to motivate prospective reviewers.

Razak M Gyasi , I am sure you are looking at motivation or should I say incentives that will quicken the pace of the review process. Yes, money may help only to an extent. How much will be sufficient and motivating enough looking at the competing demands of people in academia? It will eventually increase the cost of publishing for the individual author since the journals may find a way of pushing that cost out of the expenditure. So, I suggest that journals give a limited period (say 6 weeks minimum to 8 weeks maximum) within which reviewers should finish their report. If they fail to do so, the paper be withdrawn and sent to a different reviewer and notification given to the author. In KNUST, peer review is counted as Service and used as promotion criterion. I don't know about other institutions but I think it should be enough motivation especially if we add the suggestions of Augustus Kweku Sobeng where certification and period public acknowledgement are added. My humble innocent thought.

In the lengthy process that culminates in the publication of a scientific article, including years of toiling in the lab, nothing is free. The researcher works hard, spends years in a cramped laboratory. Reads dozens of papers to write a line of manuscript. Then pays companies up to $3,000 for Open Access to publish his/her own work. But when same publisher needs expert opinion, they seek another researcher likely also toiling as described above and ask for their time and expertise for FREE. This is to put it simply, not fair.

Researchers should be fairly compensated for their time and expertise. I dont mean yet another matric that has no measurable impact on career progression; i mean in the same manner that they have to pay to get published. In CASH.

there is nowhere in the world where a researcher can spend the points accrued from all the rigorous work (i assume) we all do in peer review. Researchers need to feed.

If researchers are well compensated, maybe fewer will be considering careers in acting and finance.

The world needs researchers' expertise; this pandemic has made it more starkly obvious. Journals should compensate them appropriately

Vincent de Paul Kanwetuu i assume you are African and working here, so a lot of our realities are similar. A few thoughts:

If money "helps to an extent" is that a bad thing?

"How much will be sufficient?" Its not hard to quantify and pay commensurate to the reviewer's qualifications, level of scholarship, quality of past reviews etc. Besides, isn't anything (decent) better than nothing at all? Those competing demands is exactly why fewer and fewer researchers are making peer review a priority. Your suggestion is what all journals do. By the time, they try 3 reviewers, that will be 5 months gone! you see why we are where we are, taking 2 years to publish a single article?

KNUST may be using reviews as promotion critertia, but most Universities do not. Incentivize peer-review and watch people take on more reviewing work and do better quality reviews.

Doaa El Amrousy this may happen as in every other aspect of life, but do you think paying reviewers will make them do worse reviews?

I Agree With Vincent de Paul Kanwetuu

Good discussion.

I agree with @Amina M. Ahmed El-Imam

We can accept money for review.

No benefits have been mounted

Yes. Payment to journal reviewers is highly recommended

Amina M. Ahmed El-Imam , Hahaha. Yes, I am African and working here in Africa. Your question "is it bad if money can help quicken the review process to an extent"?

To the extent that the journals will pay the reviewer even when a paper is rejected, then I can be convinced that genuine work will continue to be executed by reviewers for the maintenance of the standards. This is because once a paper is rejected, the journal may not earn anything and yet, has to pay the reviewer. So they are losing. If they do not pay the reviewer too for a rejected paper and will have to pay for review of only accepted papers, human nature can crop in whereby poor work may be passed for publication. It can end up breeding mediocrity in research and academic writing. To that extent, I would say it is bad.

Secondly, if the journals would not find a way of sneaking the cost of review back into the publication fee, already high for some of us, good. But to the extent that they will simply push it over to the author in the publication fee, I would say it is not helpful even though it will quicken the pace of review.

So, in conclusion, if payment of reviewers will not end up lowering standards or further tightening the non-academic nuts in publication, I am for it. But i have my doubt. Humbly. Razak M Gyasi

Publishers that charge authors exorbitant publishing fees should compensate reviewers. It will motivate reviewers to work for them.

Chukwuebuka Egbuna I totally agree with you.

I think the reimbursement can speed up the publication process mainly from the first decision because sometimes we can wait more than 6 months and it can go to 1 year for the publisher to say sorry your manuscript has been refused.

For initiation researchers, it is really painful.

This is one of the injustice no one has been able to stop in academics..

An author will write excellent manuscript..Kudos to the good reviewers who took time to check the work line by line...Only for some group of people to charge exhorbitant fee on both the authors and institution...