Academic publishing costs: Should reviewers be compensated for their time?? #science


Eleftherios P. Diamandis has written a provocative correspondence in this week’s Nature. Diamandis suggests that reviewers and journals should treat peer-review as a business transaction. In other words, journals should pay for the reviewers valuable time to encourage fast and quality reviews. At the end of the day, reviewers serve as manuscript editors (for both science and writing), why should they provide this service for free to a for-profit business (in many cases)?

Reviewers are crucial to the success of prestigious and profitable journals, traditionally receiving no monetary or other recognition. As journals proliferate and scientists get ever busier, our appetite for reviewing wanes (see, for example, M. Arns Nature 5154672014). One way to revive this activity would be to consider it a business transaction — with modest remuneration of, say, US$50 per hour (see also S. Ott and D. Hebenstreit Nature 5062952014).

CauseScience has posted before about academic publishing and its need for a major overhaul. The current system takes advantage of taxpayers, institutions, and researchers. What do you think? Should reviewers get compensated for their time spent reviewing research manuscripts? Take the poll below:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s