4 ms·

In academia (at least the hard sciences), no faculty are ever paid for publishing in mainstream, peer-reviewed journals. No reviewers are ever paid either, alth

In academia (at least the hard sciences), no faculty are ever paid for publishing in mainstream, peer-reviewed journals. No reviewers are ever paid either, although recently Elsevier has started to publish the names of its "star reviewers", presumably as a token for the large investment in time and expertise required to evaluate papers for publication and improve the field. Even book deals (or editorships) yield no real income, beyond some nominal amount (between $0 and $50). What's more, the lay public is hilariously misinformed about this, believing that faculty, researchers, etc., are paid royalties for journal papers. Where they got this idea, I don't know ...

impendia 8y ago
> No reviewers are ever paid either That's almost true. Elsevier once surprised me with a $100 Amazon gift card, which they said was in recognition for a particularly good job of peer review that year. I'd laugh at the prospect of Elsevier rewarding me with "recognition" -- certainly something I would not put on my CV -- although I did take their money. Another time, the American Mathematical Society (which is non-profit, and perfectly ethical) asked me to do a book review, and then gave me $150 in bookstore credit afterwards -- again by surprise. My understanding is that book authors can make a reasonable amount in royalties (a few thousand, anyway). For journal papers, as you say I've never heard of any author getting a royalty.
- randomsearch 8y ago
  In some subjects, reviewers are indeed paid. Probably the parent has experience in CS or similar where reviewers are never paid.
- laichzeit0 8y ago
  What's your hourly rate? How many hours did you spend reviewing? Divide that $100 by the hours and see if it was worth it.
  - bubblethink 8y ago
    Reviewing isn't a full-time job (or any sort of job really). So the hourly rate doesn't make sense. If anything, you'd have to put reviewing in the consulting category since the hour that you spend reviewing something isn't a literal hour of labor. It's the years of experience that you enabled you to do a review in an hour.
  - impendia 8y ago
    > What's your hourly rate? This is not how I think about my job. Rather, the university pays me a salary, and expects me to engage in "scholarship" and "professional service" -- and I get to decide where I think I can make the biggest contributions. This luxury is not available to everyone. Universities are hiring more and more non-tenure-track instructors, at lower rates of pay, with less job security, with higher teaching loads, and (usually) without any research expectations. In the future, we might be obliged to think about our jobs in more transactional terms. But for now, I have the luxury of not having to think very much about questions like yours.
  - kaitai 8y ago
    The sibling commenters here have it right -- and I'll add that reviewing and similarly reading grant submissions are tasks that benefit the researcher as well. Sure, it's work, but you stay on top of the new stuff in your field, develop some sense of what's important and what's minutia, are able to identify new people coming into the field and how they or their work might interact with your own. If you don't review at all, you are actually missing a fair bit of professional development and power. It works fine for some not to review but for others it's an important part of the intellectual process.
sgillen 8y ago
I’ve actually heard of some Chinese universities awarding profs something like $150,000 for getting an article published in nature[1]. [1] https://www.economist.com/china/2018/11/17/tsinghua-university-may-soon-top-the-world-league-in-science-research https://www.economist.com/china/2018/11/17/tsinghua-universi...
int_19h 8y ago
> Where they got this idea, I don't know ... We get this idea from basic fairness within the rules of the larger system. Clearly, there are private companies that make money from publication of those papers. It follows that in a fair arrangement of some sort, they would have acquired the necessary rights from the original authors for some compensation or profit sharing agreement. That they don't actually do that is indication that arrangement is not fair.
WhitneyLand 8y ago
>the lay public is hilariously misinformed about this Ironic for a scientist to rail on anecdotally and off topic about a problem they play the much larger role in deciding the fate of. Knowledge of science among the general public let alone of how this sausage factory works is however unfortunate, not the key to fixing the problem. There are a handful of different key roles and interests competing to influence the outcome. Researchers, universities, publishers, for profit businesses, etc. It’s not that complicated. There’s the logistics, economics, and best guess modeling of any proposed changes. Then separate from these technicalities people everyday are making value judgements and prioritizing principles against personal interests. I’m not trying to advocate my opinion here in a comment of what these stakeholders should do. Only that these individual decisions, judgements, and will to act on them play a far greater role than public knowledge of who gets paid to review a paper.
Fomite 8y ago
I've been paid (in credit for more books) for two reviews of book proposals.
BurnGpuBurn 8y ago
> the lay public is hilariously misinformed When I start thinking about what we lay public have been denied, in welfare, progress and life, just because scientists don't share the knowledge the lay public pays them to produce, the word hilarious isn't what's coming to mind.

impendia 8y ago

> No reviewers are ever paid either That's almost true. Elsevier once surprised me with a $100 Amazon gift card, which they said was in recognition for a particularly good job of peer review that year. I'd laugh at the prospect of Elsevier rewarding me with "recognition" -- certainly something I would not put on my CV -- although I did take their money. Another time, the American Mathematical Society (which is non-profit, and perfectly ethical) asked me to do a book review, and then gave me $150 in bookstore credit afterwards -- again by surprise. My understanding is that book authors can make a reasonable amount in royalties (a few thousand, anyway). For journal papers, as you say I've never heard of any author getting a royalty.

randomsearch 8y ago
In some subjects, reviewers are indeed paid. Probably the parent has experience in CS or similar where reviewers are never paid.
laichzeit0 8y ago
What's your hourly rate? How many hours did you spend reviewing? Divide that $100 by the hours and see if it was worth it.
- bubblethink 8y ago
  Reviewing isn't a full-time job (or any sort of job really). So the hourly rate doesn't make sense. If anything, you'd have to put reviewing in the consulting category since the hour that you spend reviewing something isn't a literal hour of labor. It's the years of experience that you enabled you to do a review in an hour.
- impendia 8y ago
  > What's your hourly rate? This is not how I think about my job. Rather, the university pays me a salary, and expects me to engage in "scholarship" and "professional service" -- and I get to decide where I think I can make the biggest contributions. This luxury is not available to everyone. Universities are hiring more and more non-tenure-track instructors, at lower rates of pay, with less job security, with higher teaching loads, and (usually) without any research expectations. In the future, we might be obliged to think about our jobs in more transactional terms. But for now, I have the luxury of not having to think very much about questions like yours.
- kaitai 8y ago
  The sibling commenters here have it right -- and I'll add that reviewing and similarly reading grant submissions are tasks that benefit the researcher as well. Sure, it's work, but you stay on top of the new stuff in your field, develop some sense of what's important and what's minutia, are able to identify new people coming into the field and how they or their work might interact with your own. If you don't review at all, you are actually missing a fair bit of professional development and power. It works fine for some not to review but for others it's an important part of the intellectual process.

sgillen 8y ago

I’ve actually heard of some Chinese universities awarding profs something like $150,000 for getting an article published in nature[1]. [1] https://www.economist.com/china/2018/11/17/tsinghua-university-may-soon-top-the-world-league-in-science-research https://www.economist.com/china/2018/11/17/tsinghua-universi...

int_19h 8y ago

> Where they got this idea, I don't know ... We get this idea from basic fairness within the rules of the larger system. Clearly, there are private companies that make money from publication of those papers. It follows that in a fair arrangement of some sort, they would have acquired the necessary rights from the original authors for some compensation or profit sharing agreement. That they don't actually do that is indication that arrangement is not fair.

WhitneyLand 8y ago

>the lay public is hilariously misinformed about this Ironic for a scientist to rail on anecdotally and off topic about a problem they play the much larger role in deciding the fate of. Knowledge of science among the general public let alone of how this sausage factory works is however unfortunate, not the key to fixing the problem. There are a handful of different key roles and interests competing to influence the outcome. Researchers, universities, publishers, for profit businesses, etc. It’s not that complicated. There’s the logistics, economics, and best guess modeling of any proposed changes. Then separate from these technicalities people everyday are making value judgements and prioritizing principles against personal interests. I’m not trying to advocate my opinion here in a comment of what these stakeholders should do. Only that these individual decisions, judgements, and will to act on them play a far greater role than public knowledge of who gets paid to review a paper.

Fomite 8y ago

I've been paid (in credit for more books) for two reviews of book proposals.

BurnGpuBurn 8y ago

> the lay public is hilariously misinformed When I start thinking about what we lay public have been denied, in welfare, progress and life, just because scientists don't share the knowledge the lay public pays them to produce, the word hilarious isn't what's coming to mind.