Is there an overview of alternative approaches to voluntary and ideal review process?
I was chatting with some colleagues earlier and we talked about about a case where a reviewer was caught consistently asking the authors of the papers reviewed for up to 30 or so of his/her own papers cited. The conversation steered towards how this kind of abuse would not be caught earlier and the idea of professional refereeing was debated around the coffee table.
One of the seniors said that paying reviewers was tested several times and in general was more problematic than not, which got me a bit curious if there is an overview of what was tried and how it was evaluated. I would be very interested in any publication that looks at the concept in a more rigorous and less anecdotal manner.
peer-review ethics
asked yesterday
posdefposdef
11.7k150101
add a comment |
I was chatting with some colleagues earlier and we talked about about a case where a reviewer was caught consistently asking the authors of the papers reviewed for up to 30 or so of his/her own papers cited. The conversation steered towards how this kind of abuse would not be caught earlier and the idea of professional refereeing was debated around the coffee table.
One of the seniors said that paying reviewers was tested several times and in general was more problematic than not, which got me a bit curious if there is an overview of what was tried and how it was evaluated. I would be very interested in any publication that looks at the concept in a more rigorous and less anecdotal manner.
peer-review ethics
asked yesterday
posdefposdef
11.7k150101
For people reading the question without knowing the details: this is the reported case
– llrs
yesterday
add a comment |
I was chatting with some colleagues earlier and we talked about about a case where a reviewer was caught consistently asking the authors of the papers reviewed for up to 30 or so of his/her own papers cited. The conversation steered towards how this kind of abuse would not be caught earlier and the idea of professional refereeing was debated around the coffee table.
One of the seniors said that paying reviewers was tested several times and in general was more problematic than not, which got me a bit curious if there is an overview of what was tried and how it was evaluated. I would be very interested in any publication that looks at the concept in a more rigorous and less anecdotal manner.
peer-review ethics
asked yesterday
posdefposdef
11.7k150101
I was chatting with some colleagues earlier and we talked about about a case where a reviewer was caught consistently asking the authors of the papers reviewed for up to 30 or so of his/her own papers cited. The conversation steered towards how this kind of abuse would not be caught earlier and the idea of professional refereeing was debated around the coffee table.
One of the seniors said that paying reviewers was tested several times and in general was more problematic than not, which got me a bit curious if there is an overview of what was tried and how it was evaluated. I would be very interested in any publication that looks at the concept in a more rigorous and less anecdotal manner.
peer-review ethics
peer-review ethics
asked yesterday
posdefposdef
11.7k150101
asked yesterday
posdefposdef
11.7k150101
asked yesterday
posdefposdef
11.7k150101
asked yesterday
posdefposdef
11.7k150101
asked yesterday
posdefposdef
11.7k150101
11.7k150101
For people reading the question without knowing the details: this is the reported case
– llrs
yesterday
add a comment |
For people reading the question without knowing the details: this is the reported case
– llrs
yesterday
For people reading the question without knowing the details: this is the reported case
– llrs
yesterday
For people reading the question without knowing the details: this is the reported case
– llrs
yesterday
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
You can refer to the following article: "Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey" to begin with.
The following extract from the results abstract is quite interesting:
Most respondents agreed that financial incentives would not be effective when time constraints are prohibitive (mean 3.59 (SD 1.01)). However, reviewers agreed that non-financial incentives might encourage reviewers to accept requests to review: free subscription to journal content (mean 3.72 (SD 1.04)), annual acknowledgement on the journal’s website (mean 3.64 (SD 0.90)), more feedback about the outcome of the submission (mean 3.62 (SD 0.88)) and quality of the review (mean 3.60 (SD 0.89), and appointment of reviewers to the journal’s editorial board (mean 3.57 (SD 0.99)).
So basically, this study confirms what your colleague mentioned about financial incentives not being the best approach to incentivise reviewers (maybe though for different reasons that you might have expected).
However, keep in mind that people in academia are not motivated only by money (as in that case they wouldn't be in academia in the first place). The are other means to motivate people that are keen to review papers, such as acknowledgements or free subscription to the journal they review, as the article states.
answered yesterday
DimPDimP
1458
Another good incentive is to give the opportunity to write editorials/commentaries.
– Joe_74
yesterday
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "415"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f124173%2fis-there-an-overview-of-alternative-approaches-to-voluntary-and-ideal-review-pro%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
You can refer to the following article: "Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey" to begin with.
The following extract from the results abstract is quite interesting:
Most respondents agreed that financial incentives would not be effective when time constraints are prohibitive (mean 3.59 (SD 1.01)). However, reviewers agreed that non-financial incentives might encourage reviewers to accept requests to review: free subscription to journal content (mean 3.72 (SD 1.04)), annual acknowledgement on the journal’s website (mean 3.64 (SD 0.90)), more feedback about the outcome of the submission (mean 3.62 (SD 0.88)) and quality of the review (mean 3.60 (SD 0.89), and appointment of reviewers to the journal’s editorial board (mean 3.57 (SD 0.99)).
So basically, this study confirms what your colleague mentioned about financial incentives not being the best approach to incentivise reviewers (maybe though for different reasons that you might have expected).
However, keep in mind that people in academia are not motivated only by money (as in that case they wouldn't be in academia in the first place). The are other means to motivate people that are keen to review papers, such as acknowledgements or free subscription to the journal they review, as the article states.
answered yesterday
DimPDimP
1458
Another good incentive is to give the opportunity to write editorials/commentaries.
– Joe_74
yesterday
add a comment |
You can refer to the following article: "Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey" to begin with.
The following extract from the results abstract is quite interesting:
Most respondents agreed that financial incentives would not be effective when time constraints are prohibitive (mean 3.59 (SD 1.01)). However, reviewers agreed that non-financial incentives might encourage reviewers to accept requests to review: free subscription to journal content (mean 3.72 (SD 1.04)), annual acknowledgement on the journal’s website (mean 3.64 (SD 0.90)), more feedback about the outcome of the submission (mean 3.62 (SD 0.88)) and quality of the review (mean 3.60 (SD 0.89), and appointment of reviewers to the journal’s editorial board (mean 3.57 (SD 0.99)).
So basically, this study confirms what your colleague mentioned about financial incentives not being the best approach to incentivise reviewers (maybe though for different reasons that you might have expected).
However, keep in mind that people in academia are not motivated only by money (as in that case they wouldn't be in academia in the first place). The are other means to motivate people that are keen to review papers, such as acknowledgements or free subscription to the journal they review, as the article states.
answered yesterday
DimPDimP
1458
Another good incentive is to give the opportunity to write editorials/commentaries.
– Joe_74
yesterday
add a comment |
You can refer to the following article: "Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey" to begin with.
The following extract from the results abstract is quite interesting:
Most respondents agreed that financial incentives would not be effective when time constraints are prohibitive (mean 3.59 (SD 1.01)). However, reviewers agreed that non-financial incentives might encourage reviewers to accept requests to review: free subscription to journal content (mean 3.72 (SD 1.04)), annual acknowledgement on the journal’s website (mean 3.64 (SD 0.90)), more feedback about the outcome of the submission (mean 3.62 (SD 0.88)) and quality of the review (mean 3.60 (SD 0.89), and appointment of reviewers to the journal’s editorial board (mean 3.57 (SD 0.99)).
So basically, this study confirms what your colleague mentioned about financial incentives not being the best approach to incentivise reviewers (maybe though for different reasons that you might have expected).
However, keep in mind that people in academia are not motivated only by money (as in that case they wouldn't be in academia in the first place). The are other means to motivate people that are keen to review papers, such as acknowledgements or free subscription to the journal they review, as the article states.
answered yesterday
DimPDimP
1458
You can refer to the following article: "Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey" to begin with.
The following extract from the results abstract is quite interesting:
Most respondents agreed that financial incentives would not be effective when time constraints are prohibitive (mean 3.59 (SD 1.01)). However, reviewers agreed that non-financial incentives might encourage reviewers to accept requests to review: free subscription to journal content (mean 3.72 (SD 1.04)), annual acknowledgement on the journal’s website (mean 3.64 (SD 0.90)), more feedback about the outcome of the submission (mean 3.62 (SD 0.88)) and quality of the review (mean 3.60 (SD 0.89), and appointment of reviewers to the journal’s editorial board (mean 3.57 (SD 0.99)).
So basically, this study confirms what your colleague mentioned about financial incentives not being the best approach to incentivise reviewers (maybe though for different reasons that you might have expected).
However, keep in mind that people in academia are not motivated only by money (as in that case they wouldn't be in academia in the first place). The are other means to motivate people that are keen to review papers, such as acknowledgements or free subscription to the journal they review, as the article states.
answered yesterday
DimPDimP
1458
answered yesterday
DimPDimP
1458
answered yesterday
DimPDimP
1458
answered yesterday
DimPDimP
1458
1458
Another good incentive is to give the opportunity to write editorials/commentaries.
– Joe_74
yesterday
add a comment |
Another good incentive is to give the opportunity to write editorials/commentaries.
– Joe_74
yesterday
Another good incentive is to give the opportunity to write editorials/commentaries.
– Joe_74
yesterday
Another good incentive is to give the opportunity to write editorials/commentaries.
– Joe_74
yesterday
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Academia Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2facademia.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f124173%2fis-there-an-overview-of-alternative-approaches-to-voluntary-and-ideal-review-pro%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
For people reading the question without knowing the details: this is the reported case
– llrs
yesterday