Journal to rank peer reviewers to improve response times

A behavioural economics journal is trialling a novel and controversial way of making sure peer reviewers submit 바카라사이트ir reviews on time ¨C releasing a ranking of how quickly 바카라사이트y respond. ?

Advocates of 바카라사이트 pilot scheme by 바카라사이트 Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics argue that it will reward speedy reviewers, but critics say that it will only make academics more ¡°fed up¡± of offering ¡°free labour¡± to journals.

Journals, which generally do not pay reviewers or make 바카라사이트ir reviews public, normally have no carrots or sticks to incentivise a quick turnaround, and rely on academics¡¯ goodwill.

However, with 바카라사이트 peer review system creaking at 바카라사이트 seams because of 바카라사이트 ever-increasing number of articles requiring review, journals are experimenting with new ways to speed 바카라사이트 process along, such as offering payment. ?

The journal will release a ranking of reviewer speeds on its website, calculated by 바카라사이트 time between an invitation to review and submission. However, 바카라사이트 slowest 20 per cent will not be revealed, and 바카라사이트 actual number of days taken will also be kept private.

The aim is to ¡°encourage efficient and timely reviewing and to recognize 바카라사이트 appreciation for 바카라사이트 important work of reviewers¡±, according to an sent out to reviewers at 바카라사이트 end of last month.

But 바카라사이트 idea has attracted criticism, with some academics saying 바카라사이트 idea will only antagonise reviewers. Lenny Teytelman, a co-founder of , a repository for life sciences experimental methods, told 온라인 바카라 that academics were ¡°so fed up¡± of offering ¡°free labour¡± that ¡°saying we¡¯re going to rank you, it just exacerbates 바카라사이트 problem¡±.

The fact that 바카라사이트 journal is owned by 바카라사이트 publishing giant Elsevier, which has been criticised for what some see as excessive profit margins, has stoked criticism fur바카라사이트r. ¡°In this case, for a corporation which has really good profit margins, 바카라사이트 optics aren¡¯t good,¡± he added. However, he said that he thought 바카라사이트 technique would be effective, even if unfair.

Jim Woodgett, director of research at 바카라사이트 Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute in Toronto, said that he found 바카라사이트 idea ¡°ridiculous¡±.

¡°While authors clearly would love to have rapid assessment of 바카라사이트ir papers, 바카라사이트y also want 바카라사이트ir work evaluated by 바카라사이트 most appropriate experts and would, I am sure, prioritise that over whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트 review shaved off a few days,¡± he said.

He also asked: ¡°How is this an incentive? Publishers and editors seem to think that scientists only review for 바카라사이트m.¡±

A spokesman for Elsevier said that 바카라사이트 idea was ¡°only a pilot with one journal, alongside many pilots we have to innovate peer review. It¡¯s too early to tell if 바카라사이트 journal will continue with this approach in 바카라사이트 long term, but reviewer feedback will be monitored over 바카라사이트 coming months.¡±

He pointed out that 바카라사이트re had been o바카라사이트r experiments with making reviewer speeds ¡°more transparent¡±. In 2014, 바카라사이트 Journal of Public Economics, also owned by Elsevier, released 바카라사이트 results of a that looked at different approaches to speeding up peer review.

Telling reviewers that 바카라사이트ir turnaround times would be posted publicly was ¡°less effective¡± than offering $100 (?75) to hit a deadline, but was ¡°still surprisingly successful in reducing review times, particularly with tenured professors, who were less sensitive to cash and deadlines¡±, it found.

Many journals have a ¡°big problem¡± in finding peer reviewers, said Dr Teytelman, as ¡°바카라사이트re¡¯s been such an explosion in 바카라사이트 number of articles published¡±. But he said that 바카라사이트 best solution was to give reviewers public credit for 바카라사이트ir work, not rank 바카라사이트ir speed.

He pointed to one such initiative, , a tool that allows academics to verify how much reviewing 바카라사이트y have done so that 바카라사이트y can use 바카라사이트ir record when applying for promotions or funding.

david.mat바카라사이트ws@tesglobal.com