Should peer review of journal articles be paid? And if so, how much? Do people think that this will speed up the publication process? Some publishing houses are making massive profits so the money could come from this?
Ian - I would suggests that their are arguments for and against. In favour of payment for peer review, it would make review more competitive and that would, hopefully, equate to more scrutiny for reviewers. In turn, that might mean more consistent review process. Such is the 'lottery' of peer review that it is possible for a manuscript to be reviewed by three reviewers; one saying 'excellent', the other saying moderate changes - and another saying reject. Anything that levels this filed of subjective (possibly inexperienced) review scrutiny is useful.
For me - there are more things against payment. For one, it potentially removes the altruistic 'mentoring' ethos that drives many reviewers - like myself. I had/have good review mentors and wish to 'give back' to the academic community. Some may be driven purely by the cash incentive. That said, if payment were offered - i doubt that one could make a living wage from it. Any payment requires money to come from or be taken away from other sources - most likely leading to increased subscription payments/advertising costs/ manuscript costs (for open access) etc. There is a potential for a 'closed shop' cycle. For instance, very good reviewers get more reviews and more payment. New reviewers wanting to be supported and learn the 'craft' of reviewing may find themselves excluded. In this event - the review process would not be speeded up. Perhaps the opposite.
On the question of 'how much' - that would be complex. The more successful and established - the more it pays? Does a reviewer get paid by how quick they are and/or how much they write? If it was a flat sum to all - where is the equity for those that give minimal feedback against those who do counter?
Ian - I would suggests that their are arguments for and against. In favour of payment for peer review, it would make review more competitive and that would, hopefully, equate to more scrutiny for reviewers. In turn, that might mean more consistent review process. Such is the 'lottery' of peer review that it is possible for a manuscript to be reviewed by three reviewers; one saying 'excellent', the other saying moderate changes - and another saying reject. Anything that levels this filed of subjective (possibly inexperienced) review scrutiny is useful.
For me - there are more things against payment. For one, it potentially removes the altruistic 'mentoring' ethos that drives many reviewers - like myself. I had/have good review mentors and wish to 'give back' to the academic community. Some may be driven purely by the cash incentive. That said, if payment were offered - i doubt that one could make a living wage from it. Any payment requires money to come from or be taken away from other sources - most likely leading to increased subscription payments/advertising costs/ manuscript costs (for open access) etc. There is a potential for a 'closed shop' cycle. For instance, very good reviewers get more reviews and more payment. New reviewers wanting to be supported and learn the 'craft' of reviewing may find themselves excluded. In this event - the review process would not be speeded up. Perhaps the opposite.
On the question of 'how much' - that would be complex. The more successful and established - the more it pays? Does a reviewer get paid by how quick they are and/or how much they write? If it was a flat sum to all - where is the equity for those that give minimal feedback against those who do counter?
I would say yes because peer reviewers spend time to review the articles against some standards before it is cleared for publication. The journal must ensure that it meets its variable and fixed costs plus a modest profit. However, the journal editor should get "value for money" from the peer reviewers by way of thorough quality control so that the final product is top notch.
MDPI currently uses that model by offering discount vouchers to peer reviewers. I think such a model requires transparency. An open peer review system where the name of the peer reviewer and their review are publicly available. Such transparency may help ensure the peer reviewers are more responsible.
I would suggest that peer review of journal articles should be paid for some reason:
1 ) Peer review need time and effort on the part of reviewers. They must be paid to get the honest and transparent feedback of papers,
2 ) It is sometimes observed that papers are sent back to author on the pretext that the publishing company was not able to find a reviewer. This trend could be stopped because of availability of more reviewers,
3 ) Peer review process will be more competitive,
4 ) After all, by nature, every work must be paid to get the best results.
It would be nice if reviewers would get paid. However, at the end of the day the money has to come from somewhere (I am fully aware that some publishers are making nice profits) and if that leads to a situation where authors have to pay much more for publications this would disadvantage authors from institutions who simply cannot afford that. I know that OA journals already charge publication fees (which is perfectly fine) but these should not be much higher than they are now. I am using the opportunity to publish for free by being an editor/reviewer for these journals. I am happy with not getting paid as long as I can publish my papers for free.
Deleted research item The research item mentioned here has been deleted
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Publishing