Received an invitation this morning to review a paper by a journal of Springer. They did enjoyed the previous review because it was done nicely and very fast. To my part, there is no evidence or reward to show that I even did that review. Although they sent an email of thanks but I think is not enough for a reviewer who honored an invitation, invested his time and resources to do so. The astonishing thing is that these same journals charge authors so high to publish or even make profit from articles published closed access. Very surprising!

Anyway, I do not expect monetary reward but if they do that will be nice. There are other ways to reward reviewers like presenting them nice review certificate, access to their database for a specific time, free or discounted article processing fee, brochure or newsletter hard copies of the issue etc.

The best reward I have gotten so far for reviewing an article was by a journal of Elsevier that offered me free access to their database. That has helped me a lot in my research work and is very inspiring.

I have done lot of reviewing for many past years without getting any reward. I shouldered the responsibility with honesty all the time.

However, I think that it is fair if the reviewer receives: 1) Payment for each review. 2) Recording each review in his/her file. 3) A letter of thanks for the effort done in proper reviewing. Of course, all these measures will contribute to the progress of science & research.

Nizar Matar like I have told many others, and wil write here again, that nothing in life goes wasted( or unrwarded), however there can be different forms of this reward. The knowledge base and hopefully collaborators that you might have built through these reviews is rewarding in itself.

However, in this fast era, where the population of the planet that we live in, has grown by about 60,000 since I started this discussion, it is very important to apply encouragement and rewards in each system, to ensure that the people who put in their time and effort stand separate from the rest of the flock.

I am surprised as to why this hasn't been talked about or implemented in the scientific community still.

You may be surprised Dr. Tanveer that I was asked to be an internal examiner for many MSc students in the 1980s & the 1990s without being paid one penny.

Later on, the university's administration decided to pay about 35 US $ for each internal examining which was a good step in the right direction. This led to doubling or tripling my efforts, sometimes to the point of getting exhausted myself !

I do not expect money for reviewing MS and I do not give my consent for reviewing when I apprehend that it would not be possible for me to review the MS within the time limit requested for.

Nizar Matar well, atleast your university administration has come out of that era, and is paying you for the effort. And see, your dedication increased, good for you. Some universities where I have worked ARE STILL NOT PAYING anything for MSc internal examination.

Same can be said about reviewing papers. Publishers must sort out a minimum pay and depending upon experience, introduce incremental tiers to it, so that quality can be improved and timelines can be met.

Subir Bandyopadhyay thank you for your input. What do you say about reviewing papers. Should a person that is selflessly putting in the time and effort to verify something, do it freely? What is your take on that please. Regards

Waqas

I accept it as an honorary work. However, your point is also valid. If a publisher is bent upon solely making profit by publishing journals, then the reviewers can definitely demand for money.

As reviewers spent some of their precious time in improving the MS sent to him for review, some credits should be given to them in monetary form or aknowledging them by providing some authentic recommendations from publisher's side that will be useful for their career in future.

Received an invitation this morning to review a paper by a journal of Springer. They did enjoyed the previous review because it was done nicely and very fast. To my part, there is no evidence or reward to show that I even did that review. Although they sent an email of thanks but I think is not enough for a reviewer who honored an invitation, invested his time and resources to do so. The astonishing thing is that these same journals charge authors so high to publish or even make profit from articles published closed access. Very surprising!

Anyway, I do not expect monetary reward but if they do that will be nice. There are other ways to reward reviewers like presenting them nice review certificate, access to their database for a specific time, free or discounted article processing fee, brochure or newsletter hard copies of the issue etc.

The best reward I have gotten so far for reviewing an article was by a journal of Elsevier that offered me free access to their database. That has helped me a lot in my research work and is very inspiring.

Nordic Journal of Botany also free access to its papers to the reviewers for a few months.

I think that if there is a financial incentive in addition to the moral incentive, with limited time for the reviewing, it will be motivated for the reviewer to shorten the time of review.

"This is the era of pay and publish.... help yourself...." I am highly surprised when a very young researcher, who has recently become a subject editor of a pay and publish journal, refused my request of waiver, and expressed flatly exactly the same.

Thus, I am not surprised that this idea of "paid reviewing" is now emerging!

Why not? Accept payment for reviewing. Nevertheless, some orthodox Scientists will also always be there, having their own values, taking the reviewing process as an honour and happy with free readership of a journal for a certain period.

However, if someone accepts payment as a reviewer, he should be held accountable for any mistake detected later on in the eventual publication.

American Journal of Plant Sciences gives heavy concession in your publication if you review their paper.

I totally agree with Egbuna.As some of my colleagues suggested, there should be some form of incentives for the reviewers. This will boost a sense of responsibility towards the journal and also help in maintaining quality.

Some journals have tried to have incentives like certificates of review, free publications to reviewers but still some reviewers can accept to review a paper then take more time to submit their review comments hence delaying the publication. Therefore, may monetary incentives may work.

Reviewers are also researchers who take out time from their research work, teaching, etc. to go through scientific papers to provide their opinion for the advancement of science. Reviewing is seen as their duty toward the academic and scientific community. Journals should realize that their time has monetary value. However we should consider this;

Regarding the idea of paid peer review, I guess most scientists would reject it. because transforming science into business where reviewers receive money for their job may may open a door for blackmailing and bribery. Again who should be charged the cost of manuscript review? Journal or authors? and how this cost should be calculated? We understand the trouble editors may go through finding the right reviewers for their submissions. But I believe there are many solutions other than paid peer review.

Kind regards

From the angle of justice: Assume that you consulted a lawyer for an advice on a certain case . The lawyer will not give you a free of charge advice ; You have to pay !

Now , isn't that essentially the same as when you are asked to review. The side, which requested a reviewing work from you, ought to pay.

It is unfortunate that academics in many universities are assigned work beyond their duties (such as when you are appointed in the biology department & asked to invigilate a 2 hours exam in the English department) but they are not paid for that work. Again, assume that you asked a worker to mow the grass in your garden for a specified payment; the payment must increase if you ask the worker to plant 2 trees in the garden. Basic justice has been missed in many institutions while the academics are afraid to request their rights.

Not always, long time to publish is due to reviewers. But a financial incentive for reviewers could lead to an increase in the quality of their work.

Sandhyarani Khomdram thanks for your input. Totally agreed.

Chukwuebuka Egbuna sure, As I wrote in my previous comments, there are ways of rewarding the people, but since so much money is involved, there has to be some method to direct this money to the peoper people that make it all happen.

Asmaa Mahdi, thanks for he input.

@Tapas Chakrabarty very interesting input. Yes I thin it is another facet of it. Reviewers willbe more responsible for the paper and hence do a more efficient job. What do you say

Sanatombi, Keagile, thanks for input.

Nizar Matar very well put, @Laura, exactly.

Leabaneng tawe, thanks for the input. Lets, take an example of the top most scientific journal, Elsevier, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsevier

In 2017 alone, it generated a Revenue of £2.48 billion,

Published 430,000 articles in this year.

That accounts for £6,511.63/article.

I just cant digest the fact that not even £1 was paid to the reviewers that play an important part in the whole system. Doesnt that surprise you ?. Would love you guys feedback on this

Answer is very simple: nobody is ready to pay price. Neither the publishers, nor the readers.

If a journal is asking author(s) for fee, they must pay the reviewer(s).

@Sadanand, yes that is true, but the publisher is generating quite a lot of revenue. In my previous comment I calculated that Elsevier generated £6,511.63/article (avg.). There must be an accountability of all the stakeholders for just distribution of this revenue. Otherwise this business model is almost analogous slavery, where the poor reviewer is sacrificing academic and personal commitments for free. And it's not going to translate into effective quality research output in the long run.

Dr. Waqas H. Tanveer,

At some 3rd world universities , what you stated well " business model is almost analogous slavery, where the poor reviewer is sacrificing academic and personal commitments for free." applies. Few years ago, an old scholar was asked by an institution's administration to invigilate (for free) 3 final exams in one day (9-11, 11-2, and 2-5) while these exams were none of his affairs. When he protested politely, a boss threatened him with punishment (i.e. bullying). In that day, he was incapable of standing during the last exam & he was obliged to use muscle relieving cream to his legs after returning home. Sad but true story, I vow.

Its a sad world for academics, where in the end we are always told to find solace in the fact that we are shaping this and the next generation leaders. While it is indeed a satisfactory feeling to be in this field, where you get to see the bright spark of hope on the faces of aspiring scientists, who benefit from your knowledge, it would be even more effective had the teachers were given a competitive package as other professions of the same degree.

Motivation is the key towards generation of reputable results. In- kind appreciation will propagate a great mileage towards this discourse.

Thanks for your input.

I am trying to put in an application to all the journals and their fund organizers, into taking this action and acknowledge (in a more tangible way) the reviewers.

Any suggestions on whom to contact to have our voice listened effectively are most welcome.

Kind regards

Waqas

I stumbled across this topic because I just completed an extensive review myself and unfortunately the paper was not of a good enough quality for publication and then after submission I saw the other reviews about 3-4 sentences long and basically just accept as is or after minor revisions. This paper so clearly needed work - fundamentally and organisational. Once again I was very disappointed with the poor quality of the other reviews. Reviews take time and it seems people aren't giving the time required to do a proper review. It is understandable people don't always have time to review. Nonetheless, when we review we need to do a thorough job. How can you expect constructive reviews if the reviews that you give are just a few sentences yourself?

Maybe a more selective process and potential to incorporate an incentive into the system to improve the system because right now I just see so many poor reviews of just a few sentences that look like the reviewer has read the abstract and nothing else. Unfortunately, the demand to publish and the number of poor quality journals that exist are big drivers of this problem. Something needs to change.

Dear David.

I feel your frustration. This is exactly my point. In order to improve the overall quality of science, one must accommodate a way to appreciate the time and effort by reviewers.

After months of negotiation, the University of California (UC) has decided to walk away from the world's largest scientific publisher, Elsevier. Here's why ...

#ecs #uc #openaccess #freethescience #publishing #scientificpublishing#scholarlyjournals

https://www.electrochem.org/redcat-blog/university-of-california-cuts-ties-with-elsevier/?fbclid=IwAR1xYkelzJxXyizjF-FJ2c--hHwld8K82Zns-jsR0An0zQ-gz85yr-KdeCg