SHOULD REVIEWERS OF SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS CHARGE FOR REVIEWING A SCIENTIFIC ARTICLE?......
Most cerrtainly. Reviewing is a job like everything else. It should be free if reviewers are asked to review a practitioner's paper, but it can't be free when helping large companies to earn money. In the latter, reviewers are entitled to a retribution, if not, thet are just used.
Dear Jose-Maria
Exactly, but is more that a win-win situation. It is the best business in the world; it allows earning huge amounts of money for publishers, doing practically nothing and assuming no risk. Publishers, albeit not all, take advantage of kindness and 'honor', and transform into shameless abuse.
Dear Ajit
I don't think that paying the reviewer could be biased, because that is judging something than can't be proved. Regarding qualification of reviewers, the jourtnal should have a CV of each one showing his/her expertise.
In my opinion, a reviewer must do a job as good as possible, irrelevant of the time it takes.
Regarding the fact that some publishers offer waiving future publishing fees as a compensation for a reviewer work, I believe that is fair. It is balanced, and both win.
What is not fair, and even offensive, is to offer a reviewer a voucher to be applied to a future article by the reviewers, because normally its amount is not even remotely close of what the reviewer should pay, say for instance a voucher of 250 Euros against a publication fee of 3000 Euros. It is simply a publisher strategy to get a future client.
Of course, I plenty agree with your last paragraph. If you accept a review paid or not, the quality of your review MUST be the same.
Totally agree with your think Nolberto
"Of course, I plenty agree with your last paragraph. If you accept a review paid or not, the quality of your review MUST be the same"
I said it many times
I don't have any problem in revieweing, for free, if a studdent, a proffesor or an university ask for it., but I refuse to do that to help a company to "earn" an obscene amount of money, to my expense
I think it should be paid too. It is work and when I do a review i want that my work is respected and paid. It is not about being biased. I also get paid for my work as a professor, and still I am not biased to let every student pass no matter what they do or not do. It is a personal decision to keep your own work quality high - no matter of payment.
In complete agreement with Daniela
Not only reviewers should be paid, they also should be certified as such.
I have read hundreds of papers and also commented until today, on 100 papers published in RG, that evrybody can read.
In some than 90 % of the cases, it is a shame wthat the reviewers approved, when they ignored at purpose, or by negligencre, or vested interest, basic rules on MCDM methdds, and they approve a paper thst violates thm, without too much thinking. Or when thy speak about optimality in multi criteria, when normally it is impossible, or when writers use fuzzy on invented values for weights.
As an eaxmple, it is very comnon that reviewers look to the other side when a paper violates basic principles in some methods, as in of AHP, and does not take into account its requirement for criteria independeny, established by Saaty himself.
It appears that in many, many cases, not in all of them of course, reviewers don't care about what they approve. It is only a mean to be published in Publons and cited in their CVs.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Mathematical Sciences
- Statistics
- Probability
- Probability Theory
- Reliability