Should peer reviewers be paid?

To Pay or Not To Pay?

‍

Peer review is a form of self-regulation in the research community where an article is examined by one or more people with competencies in relevant fields. Why is peer review important? This system has acted as a gatekeeper of published research from as early as 1731. Papers published through the peer review system are considered to uphold the standards of research integrity. The advantages and benefits of peer review are well known. Knowing the importance of peer review, this system is generally trusted as a form of objective scrutiny or quality control of a paper.

‍

However, the peer review system is not entirely faultless. Aside from reviewers’ bias and the threat of plagiarism, one of the issues plaguing this system is compensation. Peer reviewers have always worked on an honorary basis, the only “currency” in the system being that of the reviewers’ and journal editors’ time. But if we were to put a monetary value to the costs of peer reviews, it could go up to £1.9 billion a year.

‍

The question of whether peer reviewers should be paid for their work has been a controversial debate over the years. Now, this question has gained more prominence as peer reviewers are becoming harder to find. With a surge in research output since the COVID-19 pandemic began in 2020, the global demand for peer reviewers is not being met with adequate supply. Reviewers lead busy personal and professional lives, and it is not uncommon for them to struggle with “reviewer fatigue” due to the ever-growing requests for peer reviews.

‍

On one hand, members of the scientific research community like James Heathers argue that peer reviewers deserve to be compensated for their work. On the other hand, some argue that having to pay peer reviewers would double a journal’s annual expenses, and this money is better spent as investments into potentially lifesaving research. Furthermore, if journals paid peer reviewers, they would transfer the burden of their increased expenses back on the research community in the form of higher APCs and subscription charges.

‍

Alternatives to Monetary Compensation  

‍

The numerous challenges of monetary compensation for peer reviewers lead us to consider non-monetary rewards. However, such alternatives have their own pitfalls. For instance, this study examines whether non-monetary compensation can increase scientists’ willingness to become peer reviewers. Interestingly, the study found that the number of willing peer reviewers decreased after a non-monetary reward was offered. According to this study, some intrinsically motivated researchers who are intent on becoming peer reviewers may even be discouraged by non-monetary rewards.

In Conclusion

‍

Regardless of one’s stance on whether journals should pay peer reviewers, we can all agree on the importance of peer review. It is a valuable service that acts as the cornerstone of the research community. Rewarding this service, monetarily or otherwise, can help assign a tangible value to the system and the researchers that uphold it. However, we must bear in mind that the compensation of peer reviewers is a sensitive consideration that must be explored carefully and extensively from the perspectives of all stakeholders.

‍

Further Reading

• Sciencemag, The $450 question

‍

Connect with us to know more about Kriyadocs

‍

Image courtesy: Designed by Freepik