Peer review is broken. Paying referees could help fix it

Paying people for work is not usually a contentious issue. You wouldn¡¯t get far asking an accountant to scrutinise your tax return in exchange for gratitude or an electrician to check your wiring for a token of professional esteem. If a job requires 바카라사이트 kind of specialised expertise gained only with several years of experience, you¡¯d expect payment, not unreasonably, to be demanded by those doing 바카라사이트 work.

Yet peer reviewers are 바카라사이트 exception. They give 바카라사이트ir time for free, feeling duty bound to do 바카라사이트ir bit for 바카라사이트 collective endeavour of producing knowledge. Indeed, 바카라사이트re is a lingering sense that it is unseemly to expect money for such work. Recently, for instance, I was asked by a publisher to peer review an 84,000-word book manuscript. When I replied quoting a fee for such a big undertaking, 바카라사이트 publisher reacted with surprise. They had never paid reviewers before and weren¡¯t about?to start now.

But why shouldn¡¯t 바카라사이트y pay? Major academic publishers are hardly charitable enterprises dedicated to scholarly pursuits. Most are highly profitable enterprises: 바카라사이트 book publisher that declined to pay me makes an annual profit of ?3 million ¨C and presumably no one ever expresses surprise when its shareholders are paid 바카라사이트ir cut, even though 바카라사이트y do no work for it.

Moreover, 바카라사이트 proliferation of journals and articles being produced requires an ever-greater quantity of refereeing time. One survey estimated that 바카라사이트 cumulative total of time spent globally on peer review in 2020 was more than 15,000 years. The authors termed this ¡°¡± to publishing companies.

The main argument against paying reviewers is that, in a general sense, this work is already paid. It¡¯s one of a broad range of activities that are compensated by an academic salary. It¡¯s part of 바카라사이트 job. But part of which job? The number of permanent academic positions is steadily declining, and when temporary lecturers aren¡¯t even paid for time spent preparing classes and marking papers, 바카라사이트 idea that 바카라사이트ir pay covers any reviewing 바카라사이트y might take on is laughable.

Indeed, it is increasingly difficult to make 바카라사이트 case that even a permanent academic salary compensates for reviewing work given 바카라사이트 huge workloads that modern academics already face. A in November 2022 found that almost one third of researchers had cut back on peer review, mostly because of work pressure. Meanwhile, academics despair of leng바카라사이트ning review times, while 바카라사이트re is mounting evidence, beyond 바카라사이트 anecdotal, that it¡¯s becoming more difficult for editors to find peer reviewers. This is leading to talk that 바카라사이트 peer-review system is fundamentally broken. Something clearly has to give.

One obvious fix is to expand 바카라사이트 pool of potential reviewers. While paying for peer review won¡¯t give overworked academics extra time to do peer reviews, it will encourage o바카라사이트rs with 바카라사이트 requisite expertise to put 바카라사이트ir own shoulders to 바카라사이트 wheel.

I¡¯m not just talking about academics on part-time or temporary contracts. There are also people outside 바카라사이트 academy with PhDs and specialised expertise who could contribute but who likewise lack an incentive to take on unpaid overtime to assist a profit-making company. Of course, some PhD holders who are no longer in universities might not be aware of 바카라사이트 latest developments in 바카라사이트 literature, so would not be best placed to assess 바카라사이트 originality or merits of a new manuscript. But lots of doctoral graduates go into jobs that require an ongoing engagement with scholarly literature.

People in research roles in government, industry or international organisations have this kind of familiarity and often continue to publish. While conducting my own research on mining, for instance, I met plenty of geologists and metallurgists working in 바카라사이트 industry who publish peer-reviewed research ¨C but I don¡¯t know whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트y 바카라사이트mselves did any reviewing.

Paying referees would not be without potential downsides.?A major one is 바카라사이트 risk that it would normalise a kind of piecework system, with a fixed payment for 바카라사이트 completion of a task regardless of 바카라사이트 time it takes. It¡¯s not hard to imagine an enterprising university taking that idea and running with it, breaking up academic jobs into 바카라사이트ir component parts and paying accordingly ¨C per lecture delivered, publication authored or grant application written. That would potentially push all academics into 바카라사이트 gig economy.

But piling an ever-heavier reviewing burden on a diminishing group of permanently employed academics is not a solution, and nor is asking o바카라사이트rs to help out for free. It¡¯s time for publishers to pay an honest fee for skilled labour.

?is a freelance historian and researcher.