3 ms·

So, if the problem is that scientists lack motivation to peer review, I think having peer review work recognized as important in tenure-and-promotion would prob

So, if the problem is that scientists lack motivation to peer review, I think having peer review work recognized as important in tenure-and-promotion would probably be far more motivating than whatever hourly rate they'd end up paying. Article authors are generally not paid! Yet there is no lack of motivation to write articles. How to motivate to do peer-review well instead of perfunctorily is another question.

ta988 6y ago
Article authors often pay as well. Either directly because the journal is a science-tabloid or because the authors want to make their work accessible to all. Or indirectly through the indirect cost the universities are taking from grant agencies to pay for their confidential agreements with publishers. Try to do a FOIA of a state university to get that information you will see how hard they will fight the fact that they get scammed. Authors write because this is how you justify that you are really working, be it for your university, department or your grant agency. Also you want others to build upon your work, but academics would publish a lot less if it was not for the huge pressure from funders and employers (increasing numbers is all that count for many of them).
- jrochkind1 6y ago
  Right. Peer review is also essential to the production of research articles. And is done largely by the same people who are writing articles; but they are incentivized non-monetarily to write articles, but not as much to review. To restate my point perhaps more clearly: If reviewing were rewarded/expected as part of one's role at a university, department, or grant agency similarly to authorship, that would do far more to incentivize it than paying a relatively modest amount for a review.
michaelmior 6y ago
I would argue that article authors generally are paid indirectly by the institution which employs them. Most scientific publications are authored by academics or members of research labs who are specifically paid to publish. Of course, pay is not directly tied to each publication, but that is what most authors are paid for. At least in my institution, contributing to the peer review process is also an expected part of the process to achieve tenure. But the incentive is certainly far less than the incentive to publish.

ta988 6y ago

Article authors often pay as well. Either directly because the journal is a science-tabloid or because the authors want to make their work accessible to all. Or indirectly through the indirect cost the universities are taking from grant agencies to pay for their confidential agreements with publishers. Try to do a FOIA of a state university to get that information you will see how hard they will fight the fact that they get scammed. Authors write because this is how you justify that you are really working, be it for your university, department or your grant agency. Also you want others to build upon your work, but academics would publish a lot less if it was not for the huge pressure from funders and employers (increasing numbers is all that count for many of them).

jrochkind1 6y ago
Right. Peer review is also essential to the production of research articles. And is done largely by the same people who are writing articles; but they are incentivized non-monetarily to write articles, but not as much to review. To restate my point perhaps more clearly: If reviewing were rewarded/expected as part of one's role at a university, department, or grant agency similarly to authorship, that would do far more to incentivize it than paying a relatively modest amount for a review.

michaelmior 6y ago

I would argue that article authors generally are paid indirectly by the institution which employs them. Most scientific publications are authored by academics or members of research labs who are specifically paid to publish. Of course, pay is not directly tied to each publication, but that is what most authors are paid for. At least in my institution, contributing to the peer review process is also an expected part of the process to achieve tenure. But the incentive is certainly far less than the incentive to publish.