3 ms·

Reviewers certainly shouldn't be the ones profiting from it, that would be an absurd conflict-of-interest. Publishers do some work, but I think it's mostly the

Reviewers certainly shouldn't be the ones profiting from it, that would be an absurd conflict-of-interest. Publishers do some work, but I think it's mostly the long-tail problem. The popular stuff is subsidizing the large number of very very esoteric. Unbundling might help.

maxerickson 9y ago
Can you explain the conflict you see? The editor would still pick reviewers based on reputation, they'd just get a lump sum along with the work.
noobermin 9y ago
I'd have to think of it, but I think reviewers would have a conflict-of-interest if they were paid based on the result of their reviews. If they are compensated to just review a paper either way I don't see the issue.
- pishpash 9y ago
  Depends on what they believe the purpose of the review is. They'll be incented to do whatever gets them more reviews.
anbende 9y ago
You're mistaken. Paying reviewers would only cause a conflict of interest if it biases reviewers in a particular direction. Which direction would that be? Paying the reviewer doesn't incentivise them to accept or reject only to actually do the review. As it stands, in many fields reviewers are far from experts in the area they're reviewing but only in the same general discipline. Papers sail through review without proper statistical oversight, because what statistics expert is going to spend their time reviewing psych or bio articles when that's not their discipline? Well if we paid people to do what amounts to some of the most important work in science, maybe we'd get actual experts to do it!
- pishpash 9y ago
  Or, you get charlatans who review for money.
  - anbende 9y ago
    That's a danger, for sure, but once you're paying people you can generally be more choosy. CVs can be reviewed as can previous review work. No one suggests that paying programmers to program results in shoddier work. There just needs to be an accountability and feedback system just like in any other industry.

maxerickson 9y ago

Can you explain the conflict you see? The editor would still pick reviewers based on reputation, they'd just get a lump sum along with the work.

noobermin 9y ago

I'd have to think of it, but I think reviewers would have a conflict-of-interest if they were paid based on the result of their reviews. If they are compensated to just review a paper either way I don't see the issue.

pishpash 9y ago
Depends on what they believe the purpose of the review is. They'll be incented to do whatever gets them more reviews.

anbende 9y ago

You're mistaken. Paying reviewers would only cause a conflict of interest if it biases reviewers in a particular direction. Which direction would that be? Paying the reviewer doesn't incentivise them to accept or reject only to actually do the review. As it stands, in many fields reviewers are far from experts in the area they're reviewing but only in the same general discipline. Papers sail through review without proper statistical oversight, because what statistics expert is going to spend their time reviewing psych or bio articles when that's not their discipline? Well if we paid people to do what amounts to some of the most important work in science, maybe we'd get actual experts to do it!

pishpash 9y ago
Or, you get charlatans who review for money.
- anbende 9y ago
  That's a danger, for sure, but once you're paying people you can generally be more choosy. CVs can be reviewed as can previous review work. No one suggests that paying programmers to program results in shoddier work. There just needs to be an accountability and feedback system just like in any other industry.