Where are the carrots? A proposal to start crediting peer reviewers for their contribution to science

Laxdal, Aron; Haugen, Tommy

doi:10.1002/leap.1589

Learned Publishing

2023

DOI: 10.1002/leap.1589

|View full text |Cite

Where are the carrots? A proposal to start crediting peer reviewers for their contribution to science

Aron Laxdal,

Tommy Haugen

Abstract: Key points The peer review system is viewed by many as being flawed and antiquated. While it is unlikely that the system will be overhauled completely, some changes seem to be warranted. Our proposal is to change the incentives to do peer review by making reviews a part of the tenure criteria and valuing reviews as a contribution to the literature. The proposal would require more transparency than is currently the industry norm to prevent unwanted effects. We believe these changes would not only increase willi… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

2024

Publication Types

Select...

Article4

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent4

Authors

Journals

Cited by 4 publications

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

A harm reduction approach to improving peer review by acknowledging its imperfections

Cooke,

Young,

Peiman

et al. 2024

FACETS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This candid perspective written by scholars from diverse disciplinary backgrounds is intended to advance conversations about the realities of peer review and its inherent limitations. Trust in a process or institution is built slowly and can be destroyed quickly. Trust in the peer review process for scholarly outputs (i.e., journal articles) is being eroded by high-profile scandals, exaggerated news stories, exposés, corrections, retractions, and anecdotes about poor practices. Diminished trust in the peer review process has real-world consequences and threatens the uptake of critical scientific advances. The literature on “crises of trust” tells us that rebuilding diminished trust takes time and requires frank admission and discussion of problems, creative thinking that addresses rather than dismisses criticisms, and planning and enacting short- and long-term reforms to address the root causes of problems. This article takes steps in this direction by presenting eight peer review reality checks and summarizing efforts to address their weaknesses using a harm reduction approach, though we recognize that reforms take time and some problems may never be fully rectified. While some forms of harm reduction will require structural and procedural changes, we emphasize the vital role that training editors, reviewers, and authors has in harm reduction. Additionally, consumers of science need training about how the peer review process works and how to critically evaluate research findings. No amount of self-policing, transparency, or reform to peer review will eliminate all bad actors, unscrupulous publishers, perverse incentives that reward cutting corners, intentional deception, or bias. However, the scientific community can act to minimize the harms from these activities, while simultaneously (re)building the peer review process. A peer review system is needed, even if it is imperfect.

show abstract

A harm reduction approach to improving peer review by acknowledging its imperfections

Cooke,

Young,

Peiman

et al. 2024

FACETS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

There is no easy fix to peer review but paying referees and regulating the number of submissions might help

L. Seghier

2024

F1000Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The exponential increase in the number of submissions, further accelerated by generative AI, and the decline in the availability of experts are burdening the peer review process. This has led to high unethical desk rejection rates, a growing appeal for the publication of unreviewed preprints, and a worrying proliferation of predatory journals. The idea of monetarily compensating peer reviewers has been around for many years; maybe, it is time to take it seriously as one way to save the peer review process. Here, I argue that paying reviewers, when done in a fair and transparent way, is a viable solution. Like the case of professional language editors, part-time or full-time professional reviewers, managed by universities or for-profit companies, can be an integral part of modern peer review. Being a professional reviewer could be financially attractive to retired senior researchers and to researchers who enjoy evaluating papers but are not motivated to do so for free. Moreover, not all produced research needs to go through peer review, and thus persuading researchers to limit submissions to their most novel and useful research could also help bring submission volumes to manageable levels. Overall, this paper reckons that the problem is not the peer review process per se but rather its function within an academic ecosystem dominated by an unhealthy culture of ‘publish or perish’. Instead of reforming the peer review process, academia has to look for better science dissemination schemes that promote collaboration over competition, engagement over judgement, and research quality and sustainability over quantity.

show abstract

Paying reviewers and regulating the number of papers may help fix the peer-review process

L. Seghier

2024

F1000Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.

Contact Info

customersupport@researchsolutions.com

10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614

Henderson, NV 89052, USA

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Blog Terms and Conditions API Terms Privacy Policy Contact Cookie Preferences Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Made with 💙 for researchers

Part of the Research Solutions Family.

Where are the carrots? A proposal to start crediting peer reviewers for their contribution to science

Cited by 4 publications

References 14 publications

A harm reduction approach to improving peer review by acknowledging its imperfections

A harm reduction approach to improving peer review by acknowledging its imperfections

There is no easy fix to peer review but paying referees and regulating the number of submissions might help

Paying reviewers and regulating the number of papers may help fix the peer-review process

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About