4 ms·
Yes, paying researchers to 'review' could be a solution but incentives are still misaligned - there's far too much upside in publishing vis-a-vis reviewing. It'
by jariel 6y ago
Yes, paying researchers to 'review' could be a solution but incentives are still misaligned - there's far too much upside in publishing vis-a-vis reviewing. It's a prisoner's dilemma type thing and it would require a kind of broad, institutional practice to make sure everyone was helping out with the reviewing part.
Economic incentives are never perfect either, but they might help.
Since we have a giant oversupply of PhDs looking for positions it'd seem maybe this wold be nice work for them, and frankly anyone applying for any kind of job should have a big list of articles they've reviewed as one of those resume checkmarks.
- jrochkind1 6y ago> Yes, paying researchers to 'review' Literally not at all what i'm saying, but I am apparently failing to communicate today, so I'll give up. But yes, I think changes in "broad, institutional practice" are required to fix the current severe problems in academic publishing, of which a lack of peer review labor is only a small part.
- jariel 6y ago"Is peer review also the assumption or implication of their role? If not, should it be," This is what I was responding to assuming you were implying that in general should 'researchers also be paid to review, implied as part of their job description'. As if to say 'reviewing should go hand in hand with publishing' as part of the normal paid activity of researchers. That probably makes the most sense but would require a lot of institutions getting on board.