4 ms·
Peer review should always be unpaid. Some journals will give you a $100 discount voucher, but I've never heard of anyone being directly compensated. My own rul
by OmicronCeti 5y ago
Peer review should always be unpaid. Some journals will give you a $100 discount voucher, but I've never heard of anyone being directly compensated.
My own rule of thumb is that I have to to three peer-reviews for every one paper I publish, since my paper will have three reviewers (usually). That way I can stay at review/submission equilibrium!
- anewhnaccount2 5y agoOkay, I was actually responding to your "but these are virtually non-existent since peer review/editing is time and labor intensive", but I suppose you were referring to the process of finding peer reviewers.
- OmicronCeti 5y agoYeah most academics dread doing a peer review, because honestly if you actually get sent one that's a good fit, four out of five times the paper is in very rough shape, and the onus is on you the reviewer to point out and correct every problem.
- Mediterraneo10 5y agoThis depends on the field. What I get sent as a peer reviewer is generally in pretty good shape already, and the author has simply missed a relevant publication here or there, or got a factoid wrong. So, the paper was already nearly publishable as it was, and it didn’t take me more than a few minutes really to make it even better. Often my work in these cases is its own reward. I actually got sent my first outright awful paper recently, and there wasn’t in the end much of an onus on me. The flaws of the paper were so blatant that I could simply tell the editor that the entire premise was unsound without having to go into much detail, and the editor understood.