Rewarding Peer Reviewers - Maintaining the Integrity of Science Communication

Gasparyan, Armen Yuri; Герасимов, А. Н.; Voronov, Alexander A.; Kitas, George D.

doi:10.3346/jkms.2015.30.4.360

Cited by 76 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Reviewing of scientific manuscripts is usually seen as a voluntary and ethical contribution to science, working on a quid pro quo basis. Various reward and incentive systems have been proposed to bolster a more balanced participation in peer-review activities [22, 23]. Reviewer recognition platforms (such as Publons or the Reviewer Recognition Platform) have been launched recently to track and credit peer reviews [24].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Global Burden of Journal Peer Review in the Biomedical Literature: Strong Imbalance in the Collective Enterprise

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The growth in scientific production may threaten the capacity for the scientific community to handle the ever-increasing demand for peer review of scientific publications. There is little evidence regarding the sustainability of the peer-review system and how the scientific community copes with the burden it poses. We used mathematical modeling to estimate the overall quantitative annual demand for peer review and the supply in biomedical research. The modeling was informed by empirical data from various sources in the biomedical domain, including all articles indexed at MEDLINE. We found that for 2015, across a range of scenarios, the supply exceeded by 15% to 249% the demand for reviewers and reviews. However, 20% of the researchers performed 69% to 94% of the reviews. Among researchers actually contributing to peer review, 70% dedicated 1% or less of their research work-time to peer review while 5% dedicated 13% or more of it. An estimated 63.4 million hours were devoted to peer review in 2015, among which 18.9 million hours were provided by the top 5% contributing reviewers. Our results support that the system is sustainable in terms of volume but emphasizes a considerable imbalance in the distribution of the peer-review effort across the scientific community. Finally, various individual interactions between authors, editors and reviewers may reduce to some extent the number of reviewers who are available to editors at any point.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Global Burden of Journal Peer Review in the Biomedical Literature: Strong Imbalance in the Collective Enterprise

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Reviewers complained that the US$5 they received for reviews insulted them (Campanario, 1998;Ingelfinger, 1974). As of this writing, the general consensus seems to be that US$50 per hour represents a "fair wage" for peer review (Chetty, Saez, & Sándor, 2014;Diamandis, 2015;Gasparyan, Gerasimov, Voronov, & Kitas, 2015). Journal/publisher credit: journals or publishers can also offer non-monetary payments.…”

Section: Payment For Peer Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

ICIS 2017 Panel Report: Break Your Shackles! Emancipating Information Systems from the Tyranny of Peer Review

Chua¹,

Thatcher²,

Niederman³

et al. 2018

CAIS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The paper presents the report of a panel that debated the review process in the information systems (IS) discipline at ICIS 2017 in Seoul, Korea. The panel asked the fundamental question of whether we need to rethink the way we review papers in the discipline. The panelists partnered with the audience to explore some reviewing limitations in IS today and the ways that reviewing in the discipline might change to address some of its difficulties. We first report key concerns with modern reviewing. We then present arguments for and against three proposals (i.e., paying for reviews, mandatory reviews, and open reviews) and a panel audience vote on the issues. We neither advocate for nor condemn these solutions but rather use them to illustrate what we believe represent the core underlying issues with reviewing in the IS discipline. Specifically, we believe the key stumbling blocks to effectively improving our review process include 1) a lack of empirical data on actual practice, 2) a lack of clear goals, and 3) an ignorance of the possible solutions to the review dilemma that the wider literature articulates.

show abstract

“…Financial compensation is rare and is usually limited to private publishing houses and for‐profit journals because accepting money for scientific review work is considered by many to be a conflict of interest and a shadow on the presumed impartiality and objectivity of the reviewer. Hence, many journals and publishers have developed over the years various non‐financial incentives to reward good reviewers; such as certificates of excellence, privileges in publishing, enhanced access to the journal's content and bibliographic databases, discounts for books, and other small signs of recognition (reviewed by Gasparyan et al ., ). Andrology has acknowledged the efforts of reviewers by occasionally publishing the list of all referees in an appendix to the first issue in a given year.…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%