I think that following market’s logic, publishers make a strategy for their publication quality, impact point and advising; ensuing, publisher searches for well known scientist as editors and good researchers as reviewers. May be the benefit that publisher gain following economic value is not shared by editors and reviewers, but this helps democratization of science and brings people’s interest and curiosity to science and consequently the intellectual progress of the public. and the society. However, publishers could recompense effort of editors and reviewers by may be free invitations in sponsored congresses or some free samples of journals and books, or free registration into societies’ memberships.. etc… I think that rather than money payment this could preserves ethical value of science and the quality of publications.
I suppose you are offering to give your opinion on something, rather than it being a paid job. I know some people get paid if they get articles published in the form of a bonus, but you don't normally get paid when you publish a paper either.
I've been a reviewer many times for free, so, on one hand, of course, earning something sounds nice, but, on the other hand, paying reviewers would make journals even more expensive as publishing companies would still wish to earn high profits, and then, some libraries would not afford them. Also, then, maybe some reviewers would take too many papers (or those on topics they don't know much) to review to earn more money and this could reduce the quality of reviews and, as a result, published papers.
Although our journal (Journal of Mountain Science http://jms.imde.ac.cn/)
http://jms.imde.ac.cn/
Thank you all for the interesting, valuable inputs and replies. I am a firm believer that in order to raise the quality of the papers, the quality of the reviews, the speed of publishing, the interest in publishing, the ability to push further our boundaries of knowing (if to keep the status que tradition of doing research as is); there must be a smart economic formula that should be - not very difficultly - made. Paying at least two of the three players (the author, reviewer, and editor) who are involved in the big, time-taking, complex process, should be a viable idea worth considering. Companies (the publishers), either slowly or fast, will keep make money. The people who write, review, and publish should have a considerable portion of the benefit. Many people won't see anything wrong about that if the process is to become more efficient, overall.
Although our journal (the Journal of Mountain Science) doesn't pay the authors outside the China mainland, we grant the reviewers rights to read the the whole year's published papers for free and the reviewers will be acknowledged in the last issue of the journal and on the journal's web. We also provide some other preferential conditions for the reviewers.
Dear Dr. Faysal Fayez, I think paying the reviewers can possibly raise the reviewer's willingness to accept review invitation but it's a little troublesome for the payment. I think the biggest issue is to handle the payment. So if it's possilble, we can consider to establish a referee database, and then we can consider paying the referees for a period of time such as at year end.
I think that following market’s logic, publishers make a strategy for their publication quality, impact point and advising; ensuing, publisher searches for well known scientist as editors and good researchers as reviewers. May be the benefit that publisher gain following economic value is not shared by editors and reviewers, but this helps democratization of science and brings people’s interest and curiosity to science and consequently the intellectual progress of the public. and the society. However, publishers could recompense effort of editors and reviewers by may be free invitations in sponsored congresses or some free samples of journals and books, or free registration into societies’ memberships.. etc… I think that rather than money payment this could preserves ethical value of science and the quality of publications.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Publishing