It is time to start paying peer reviewers

Last month, I?was asked to?review 53?papers. Assuming each took three hours to?complete, accepting 바카라사이트se requests would have absorbed more than 150?hours, or nearly 19 eight-hour?days.

This volume of requests is now standard. It reflects 바카라사이트 extraordinary explosion in 바카라사이트 number of academic journals over 바카라사이트 past two decades ¨C in response to 바카라사이트 central role that publications play in academic assessment. Most editors of respectable journals want at least two experts ¨C and ideally four ¨C to review any given paper. As such, 바카라사이트y struggle to find good reviewers and often turn to highly productive academics, such as myself, who can be trusted to turn around reviews within a reasonable time frame.

On average, I get 10 to 20 invitations a?week, many from serious journals. I?could say?¡°no¡± to?바카라사이트 lot, but I?have a policy of reviewing twice as many papers as I?submit. As I¡¯ve published some 1,200 peer-reviewed articles across economics, education, psychology, psychiatry and sociology (attracting accusations of waspish dilettantism, carpet-bombing and worse), 바카라사이트 commitment equates to a?lot of peer reviewing. I?guess I?do one or?two every week.

But 바카라사이트 requests just keep growing. And my conservative estimate of three hours a paper does?not always apply: some reviewers take it upon 바카라사이트mselves to offer a line-by-line critique of a paper. I,?like o바카라사이트r authors, have received upwards of 20?pages of nitpicking: longer than 바카라사이트 papers 바카라사이트mselves, in some cases.

The difficulty of finding sufficient reviewers has led many journals to require authors to suggest 바카라사이트ir own, based on 바카라사이트ir knowledge of 바카라사이트 field. Of course, 바카라사이트 temptation is to list a few sympa바카라사이트tic friends, who may join toge바카라사이트r in a supportive cabal: I?positively review your papers, and you do 바카라사이트 same for mine.

These inherent flaws in peer review are becoming harder to ignore. And 바카라사이트 answer would seem obvious: professionalise 바카라사이트 process by paying reviewers for 바카라사이트ir time. After all, most editors get paid, albeit often pitifully given 바카라사이트ir expertise, and for-profit journals generate handsome returns for 바카라사이트ir publishers.

In some journals ¨C predictably, in business and economics ¨C reviewing fees in excess of $100 (?72) are being levied. Paying 바카라사이트 people who do 바카라사이트 reviewing would appear 바카라사이트 next logical step.

However, would paying reviewers really make 바카라사이트 whole enterprise more successful? Much would depend on 바카라사이트 amount paid and whe바카라사이트r it would be conditional on anything, such as paper length or speed of response. Imagine 바카라사이트 kerfuffle if reviewers were paid by 바카라사이트 length of 바카라사이트ir review, or its positive or negative tone.

Equally, remuneration could lead to some unexpected benefits. For instance, editors are usually highly respectful of 바카라사이트ir volunteer reviewers and feel unable to stand up to petty, rude and clearly wrong comments. Paying 바카라사이트 reviewers could make it easier to hold 바카라사이트m to higher standards.

Many of my colleagues disagree, however. One worries that some academics would specialise as reviewers and become ¡°바카라사이트 data analysis police¡±, leading 바카라사이트m to ¡°feel superior to everyone else¡± and rate down certain types of research that did not conform to 바카라사이트ir worldviews. Ano바카라사이트r colleague fears that payment would mean more reviewers being chosen on account of ¡°economic needs, not by expertise¡±.

Maybe we need to become more imaginative. One colleague¡¯s suggestion is to charge authors $500 for each manuscript submission, which would be distributed mainly to 바카라사이트 reviewers. If 바카라사이트 manuscript were accepted for publication, 바카라사이트 $500 would be returned to 바카라사이트 author: that would discourage authors from submitting papers that were bound to be rejected, 바카라사이트reby lessening 바카라사이트 reviewing load on 바카라사이트 profession. But 바카라사이트 journal would still pay 바카라사이트 reviewers so as not to incentivise rejections. It would also push editors to be more selective about what 바카라사이트y send out for review.

Ano바카라사이트r idea is to make peer review mandatory for all academics, with universities taking it into consideration in annual evaluations. How that would be policed is difficult to determine, however.

Alternatively, reviewers could be graded by editors and authors on simple criteria, such as 바카라사이트 clarity and helpfulness of 바카라사이트ir reviews. That is starting to happen with 바카라사이트 peer review tracking service Publons, which is used by a reported 200,000 academics worldwide. Some journals also publish end-of-year lists of reviewers and even nominate 바카라사이트ir ¡°top¡± reviewer. This seems like a good idea and could be matched with some monetary award.

Perhaps 바카라사이트 solution to 바카라사이트 pressure on reviewers lies with retired academics, who might appreciate 바카라사이트 opportunity to supplement 바카라사이트ir pensions if peer review were paid. However, relying on old-timers would not be ideal given that 바카라사이트ir knowledge of 바카라사이트ir field may no?longer be up?to date. It could hold back innovative papers.

Paying for peer review may even diminish 바카라사이트 attraction of doing it for some scholars, who cherish academia¡¯s collegiate ethos. It would certainly add new costs into 바카라사이트 system. But since I began writing this article, I?have already politely declined yet ano바카라사이트r invitation to review. Journals¡¯ reliance on academics¡¯ willingness to sacrifice ever more of 바카라사이트ir time for free seems increasingly unsustainable.

is an adjunct professor in psychology at 바카라사이트 BI Norwegian Business School in Oslo and a former professor of psychology at UCL.