Follow by the discussion of
Should reviewers be paid for their contribution?
I would like to further propose
Should editors also be paid for their contribution?
for the discussion.
Whether the financial rewards could effectively improve the review process? From a long term view, Is it a good way to motivate enthusiasm and enhance responsibility of the editors to handle the papers to keep the review process at pace?
Well, traditionally of course, the answer in both cases was a very firm NO, at least in the case of quality journals. Editors were well respected if they did a good job, and this reflected well on their department and institution. Reviewers were well respected as reviewers, but no-one could know what they had reviewed. Most good journals tended to enjoy charity status, and they were profit free.
Then things changed. Big companies and wealthy institutions purchased the copyrights of good journals to make profit. Some of my older articles can now only be owned by those willing to pay £25-30 for ONE article. I cannot distribute them on RG. There's one article I'd have to buy myself to get a fresh copy! It's disgraceful.
Given that this is now the process, no-one should do anything for free. These companies and institutions should be made to pay editors and reviewers. Withdraw your labour until they do...!
Revolution!!!!!
Christopher NOCK
Well, traditionally of course, the answer in both cases was a very firm NO, at least in the case of quality journals. Editors were well respected if they did a good job, and this reflected well on their department and institution. Reviewers were well respected as reviewers, but no-one could know what they had reviewed. Most good journals tended to enjoy charity status, and they were profit free.
Then things changed. Big companies and wealthy institutions purchased the copyrights of good journals to make profit. Some of my older articles can now only be owned by those willing to pay £25-30 for ONE article. I cannot distribute them on RG. There's one article I'd have to buy myself to get a fresh copy! It's disgraceful.
Given that this is now the process, no-one should do anything for free. These companies and institutions should be made to pay editors and reviewers. Withdraw your labour until they do...!
Revolution!!!!!
Christopher NOCK
Should reviewers be paid?
In my opinion no. It should purely be a honorary work.
Editor's job should also be honorary. However, they get some benefits.
For example if others have to pay to publish papers, the editors are exempted from that.
In our office Scientists serve as Editors. They get salary of Scientists. So their work as editors cannot be considered to be truly honorary.
Of course my answer is NO.
However, If journal's office is earning from the publications of a particular journal then not only editor but reviewers and the authors must also be paid. This journal is earning at the cost of the research work and its publications by the author, so author must also be paid.
Why not? They should be rewarded. Not only rewarded but handsomely! I will not review for any journal again without benefit(s). It can be in the form of presenting certificate, offering free publication/discount to editor or reviewer, access to their database or even in cash, yes!
For instance, I reviewed an article for Elsevier and was given access to their database for free. Some articles costs $35.95 and you can imagine having hundreds of them for free because you are a reviewer. Many do not know they have been exploited so many times!
Nordic Journal of Botany gives free access to their publications to the reviewers for six months for reviewing a MS.
Taiwania allows free publication of colour photo plates if the reviewers submit MS for publication.
In my opinion, if the journal is getting paid from the author to publish his research, why not pay for the editor and the reviewer? I think it is fair to do so. It is not necessarily a cash payment, but there are several ways to receive wages, as Dr. Chukwuebuka Egbuna said.
Dear Jiang Guo,
Please also have a look at these useful RG links.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Whether_the_editors_and_reviewers_of_the_journals_should_be_paid_some_money_according_to_their_contribution_by_the_journal
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Do_you_think_that_having_paid_reviewers_will_contribute_significantly_in_creating_high_quality_publications
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_paid_peer_review_a_good_idea_Do_you_have_anything_to_say
Good luck!
All tasks that involves the enhancement of the quality of a paper to be published, whether must be done because of our love for the scientific progression. It is purely an honorary job that must not be done because of financial or material reward. Granted, journals can be kind enough, in fact, they must be, to motivate and show kind appreciation for the excellent services offered by reviewers and editors. Personally, I have benefitted from such appreciation by many of the journals I review paper for. They include:
1. Free or discounted offers for my papers in any of their catalogued journals
2. Free access to subscription papers in their journals
3.Honorary mention in the full journal publication
4. Awarding certificates and letters of appreciation
5. Annual monetary appreciation in cash
The most important thing for us to do to benefit more from our peer review and editorial work is signing on to www.publons.com where we keep track/records of all peer reviewed/edited papers and books we have carried out for journals. This can be cited for promotions, research grants and awards to enhance our professional development.
However, personally, the MOST enticing motivating element that makes me love to engage in editorial and review services for journals for free is my earnest desire to improve the quality of scientific papers published for public consumption.
In my opinion, yes. Since editors spend time and effort, they should get some payment for their contribution.
Editors spend a lot of time corecting and modifying a research paper. They make suggestions for writers about grammatical, stylistic and spelling mistakes. In my opinion, they deserve some financial compensation for all of these services.
Absolutely not! How much would you suggest each author be paid? Would such pay be based on article length, complexity, suitability for publication, innovative contributions, number of article reviewed, etc. To pay reviewers, is to encourage some to produce as many reviews as possible quickly which will result in sloppy reviews. Scholarly work should be evaluated by volunteer scholars who are not motivated by a true desire to contribute to their profession.
The answer is supposed to be no but scientific thought has become a trade at the moment
Yes, editors spent lot of time and effort. Editor should get some remuneration for his sincerely hard work.
You provide a strict and convincing answer dear Dr. Amir W. Al-Khafaji, Thanks.
"Elite" journal publishing houses show IF to get articles for publication form the authors along with a huge amount of APC for open access publication or taking money from the libraries and the readers.
All they do as business.
In business, investment is required to get profit.
But journal publishing business can give profit without any investment for "raw materials" (the articles and their correction).
Leave about payment to the reviewers, they are not even ready to send one e - certificate to the reviewers which costs nothing!
Recently, one online peer reviewing agency started sending certificates for good reviewing (Publons) to the reviewers.
At least they have started a free yet good practice to honour the contribution of the reviewers for their business.
It should be a MUST for all journals, as per my consideration.
Thanks.
Authors, editors and reviewers should get some monetary reward based on some kind of agreed formula.
Authors are the source of everything in this process. Then editors supply the medium while reviewers approve the content. None of the above should get rich from the process, but it is an essential process.
I think they should be remunerated in some sorts. It mustn't be monetary but any kind of compensation for spending so much time and resources doing the work
The work is so, so much, I understand the tradition and what comes with the prestige but even if the remuneration would not be monetary, there is need for some sort of recognition if I should call it that.
I think being an editor opens the door for indirect cost benefits, such as getting fund for high-competitive research projects and so on. Besides building reputations, connections, and updated research experience.
in my opinion the best way to reward their work and effort is to give free and free access to the journal for which the articles are reviewed for a period of time, for example a year or maybe give free access to the journals associated to that editorial
I completely concord with Prof. Nock. Editors should be financially rewarded for their labour.
If the journals are paid university libraries and independent researchers, the authors of such articles should be paid.
Are academic or professional editors the best for journals?
Which is the better option when it comes to running academic journals – the professional editor or the academic one? Rachael Pells analyses the pros and cons of each...
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/are-academic-or-professional-editors-best-journals
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Papers