5 ms·

Why do reviewers work for free? And why scientists agree to give away their work for free?

richard_mcp 11y ago
Reviewers work for free for a few reasons reasons. First, it's prestigious to be a reviewer for a top journal and very beneficial for getting tenure. Second, it allows you to create connections with other top researchers. Third, it's giving back to the community by doing a service that needs to be done.
- dalke 11y ago
  How do people know that I have (or haven't) been a reviewer for a top journal? Do they have a public list of reviewers? Of the people I meet at a conference, how do I figure out who has been a reviewer for Nature, and how do I verify that claim?
  - mbrundle 11y ago
    My thoughts exactly. I've never known a journal to do anything to promote the fact that someone has reviewed for them (eg produce a letter on request that states which articles someone has reviewed for them). It'd be a nice and free way of creating value to reviewers who generally work for free, but I don't know any journal who's ever done this.
chimprich 11y ago
Reviewers don't really work for free; it's generally accepted that reviewing is part of their salaried job.
- matwood 11y ago
  For free in the sense that the journals pay them nothing. So lets recap; the public/university pays for the researcher and the research, the public/university pays for the reviewing and submission process, and finally the public university pays to access the work they already paid to create and review. And people wonder why everyone but the journals think the journal process is broken.
dalke 11y ago
I think it's because no one can agree on a price, tax and international payments is too expensive, and there's a tit-for-tat understanding. First, the price. The last paper I reviewed took me about 10 hours. I charge $200/hour. Should I charge $2000 for my time? If I'm paid by the hour, who tells me when to stop? If I'm paid a flat fee, how much is that fee? I have seen a reviewer write something like "I read the paper twice. It seems good. Publish it." Does that get the same as someone who spends 10 hours for a detailed critique? Second, does payment constitute work-for-hire? Does the publisher and/or reviewer need to pay taxes? Might some reviewers have a contract which prevents them from taking on part-time work? What if the reviewer is overseas? Do tax agencies from two different countries need to be involved? Third, most people expect to publish, and get their papers reviewed. If a single author has three reviewers, then that author should expect to do about three reviews. This is an imperfect system which rewards publishing rather than reviewers, but there are also some compensations to the reviewer. Moreover, I recall one story - I don't know the validity of it, but it has a ring of truth - where a daycare got annoyed with parents who picked up the children late. They decided to fine parents should that happen. As a result, children were picked up late more often because the fine was interpreted as a fee for extra daycare, and no longer social chastisement. I suspect that reviewers are in a similar boat. I'll feel different about it if I get paid a pittance than if I were to do it for free, so long as others do the same for me in the future.
- dangoldin 11y ago
  Your recall is correct - it was an Israeli daycare: http://priceonomics.com/effectiveness-of-fines-for-late-pick-up-at-daycare/ http://priceonomics.com/effectiveness-of-fines-for-late-pick...

Reviewers work for free for a few reasons reasons. First, it's prestigious to be a reviewer for a top journal and very beneficial for getting tenure. Second, it allows you to create connections with other top researchers. Third, it's giving back to the community by doing a service that needs to be done.

dalke 11y ago
How do people know that I have (or haven't) been a reviewer for a top journal? Do they have a public list of reviewers? Of the people I meet at a conference, how do I figure out who has been a reviewer for Nature, and how do I verify that claim?
- mbrundle 11y ago
  My thoughts exactly. I've never known a journal to do anything to promote the fact that someone has reviewed for them (eg produce a letter on request that states which articles someone has reviewed for them). It'd be a nice and free way of creating value to reviewers who generally work for free, but I don't know any journal who's ever done this.

chimprich 11y ago

Reviewers don't really work for free; it's generally accepted that reviewing is part of their salaried job.

matwood 11y ago
For free in the sense that the journals pay them nothing. So lets recap; the public/university pays for the researcher and the research, the public/university pays for the reviewing and submission process, and finally the public university pays to access the work they already paid to create and review. And people wonder why everyone but the journals think the journal process is broken.

dalke 11y ago

I think it's because no one can agree on a price, tax and international payments is too expensive, and there's a tit-for-tat understanding. First, the price. The last paper I reviewed took me about 10 hours. I charge $200/hour. Should I charge $2000 for my time? If I'm paid by the hour, who tells me when to stop? If I'm paid a flat fee, how much is that fee? I have seen a reviewer write something like "I read the paper twice. It seems good. Publish it." Does that get the same as someone who spends 10 hours for a detailed critique? Second, does payment constitute work-for-hire? Does the publisher and/or reviewer need to pay taxes? Might some reviewers have a contract which prevents them from taking on part-time work? What if the reviewer is overseas? Do tax agencies from two different countries need to be involved? Third, most people expect to publish, and get their papers reviewed. If a single author has three reviewers, then that author should expect to do about three reviews. This is an imperfect system which rewards publishing rather than reviewers, but there are also some compensations to the reviewer. Moreover, I recall one story - I don't know the validity of it, but it has a ring of truth - where a daycare got annoyed with parents who picked up the children late. They decided to fine parents should that happen. As a result, children were picked up late more often because the fine was interpreted as a fee for extra daycare, and no longer social chastisement. I suspect that reviewers are in a similar boat. I'll feel different about it if I get paid a pittance than if I were to do it for free, so long as others do the same for me in the future.

dangoldin 11y ago
Your recall is correct - it was an Israeli daycare: http://priceonomics.com/effectiveness-of-fines-for-late-pick-up-at-daycare/ http://priceonomics.com/effectiveness-of-fines-for-late-pick...