Paying Reviewers: How It Could Reshape Peer Review Journals

The traditional model of peer review relies heavily on volunteer scientists, who often contribute their time and expertise without compensation. However, what would happen if peer review journals started paying reviewers for their reviews? This article explores the implications and potential outcomes of such a shift, focusing on fairness, diversity, and practical considerations.

Initial Considerations: Compensation Amounts

The first question to consider is the amount of compensation that would be appropriate. For instance, $50 might seem modest for a reviewer in a rich country, akin to a beer, while for a scientist in a developing country, it could be a significant daily wage. Such a small payment can be easily covered by a small publication fee, making it feasible from an economic standpoint.

Impact on Reviewer Selection

Paying reviewers would likely change the landscape of peer review. Researchers in wealthier countries might become more selective about accepting review requests due to the time and effort involved. Conversely, researchers in developing countries might be more eager to volunteer and seek out review opportunities. This shift could enhance diversity, reducing the current bias towards scientists from rich, English-speaking countries. Papers that are of local or regional interest could be rated more favorably if the reviewer is from the same region, potentially broadening the scope and impact of peer review.

Employment and Permissions

From a practical standpoint, Institutions and publishers would need to consider how to handle compensated reviewing. One option is to treat it as 'outside work,' allowing researchers to earn the money while ensuring they do not use institutional resources. For instance, a payment of $200 for an occasional review might be considered reasonable if done in one’s free time. However, if the employer viewed it as a consulting job, the rates might rise significantly, closer to $1500 per review. This could lead to a substantial increase in publishing fees, potentially deterring many from submitting papers.

Quality and Quantity Trade-offs

Another potential consequence is the impact on the quality of reviews. If reviewers are paid a flat rate, there might be a temptation to rush through reviews to maximize their earnings. This could lower the overall quality of the review process, which is critical for the integrity of academic publishing. Editors would need to weigh the financial benefits against the potential loss in review quality.

Conclusion: A Complex but Essential Discussion

While the idea of compensating reviewers seems straightforward, the implications are complex and multifaceted. It could enhance diversity, increase the number of reviews from developing countries, and potentially reshape the publishing industry. However, it also risks diminishing the quality of reviews and significantly increasing publishing costs. As academic institutions and publishers further explore this concept, a balanced approach will be crucial to maintain the high standards of peer review.