The Scientist - USA (2020-11)

CAREERS

Practical concerns

There are other barriers that may help

explain why paid peer review hasn’t

caught on. For one, the money would have

to come from somewhere, and Stephen

Heard, an ecology researcher at the Uni-

versity of New Brunswick in Canada, sus-

pects that publishers would pass the costs

along to users rather than letting their

profits take a hit. “Normally, if you make

something more expensive to produce

then that something gets more expensive,”

he says. “So presumably, if we paid review-

ers, then either subscription rates or arti-

cle processing fees would have to go up.”

Jason Hoyt, the CEO of open-access pub-

lisher PeerJ, estimates that paying peer

reviewers would increase the overall costs

of publishing papers by 10 percent to 20

percent “for the entire publishing ecosys-

tem,” even at a modest $50 to $100 per

review. “I think people would prefer to

have cheaper publishing, not more expen-

sive publishing,” he says.

There’s also a concern that offering

money to peer reviewers could intro-

duce real or perceived conflicts of inter-

PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS

More explicit recognition of peer review contributions

from universities/funders

An online record of my peer review history, certificates,

and metrics across all journals

If papers I was asked to review were more aligned

with my expertise/interest

Personal access to journal content

Cash or in-kind payments from journals

More information about what happens to the

paper I reviewed

Discounts on publisher’s products or services

Editorial feedback on the quality of my review

Nothing

Other/Write In

0102030405060 70 8090100

WHAT REVIEWERS WANT

Although scientists often take on reviewing assignments for altruistic reasons, many would like more recognition for the work, according

to a 2018 survey by the reviewing website Publons. Of nearly 12,000 people who responded to a question about incentives for reviewers, 85

percent agreed with the statement that “institutions should more explicitly require and recognize peer review contributions.” Asked in a separate

question to choose up to two factors that would make them more likely to accept an invitation to peer review (shown below), close to

half of respondents selected “more explicit recognition of peer review contributions from universities/funders.”

Select up to 2 of the following that

would make you more likely to accept

an invitation to peer review