I feel it is as a matter of fact necessary, so at to improve the level of commitment of the reviewer. However, in economics and as a rational being, human been would always respond to incentives.

Thanks

Hi,

The whole chain of journals' production is paid, so why not the reviewers ? Payment for reviewers is a good incentive to accept papers for reviewing, and it could contribute to the quality of the review.

Am of the opinion that they should be paid. Some of the journals charge high processing fees yet they can't give reviewers who spend their time some stipends. It isn't fair

Dear Jiang,

Reviewers need to be supported and their work should be valued. However, I think financial support might lead to some negative outcomes. For example, the quality of work could suffer unless reviews are carefully checked. There are some systems e.g., Publons, a free service which helps researchers monitor and showcase their reviews. In this way, they get credited. I think what researchers need is a desire to contribute to the scientific community because everyone needs reviewers. Basically, if someone is not willing to do review work, from an ethical perspective, how could he/she expect to have his/her paper reviewed. In this sense, I agree with Charbel and his suggestion. I think systems like Publons could work. Take care.

I don´t think tehy should be paid. Reason is pretty simple: In some fields you can ensure your own papers will accepted more easily by your peers if they know you will be theirs reviewer. This way hidden networks have been grown, which affect even the grant funding. It would be outrages if those who managed to get such key role as some kind of gate keeper will get paid even money for this position.

No,  one is fortunate to be able to serve the scientific community in such a way.