Payment and progress in peer review

Abstract

Phaik Y Cheah and Jan Piasecki1Cheah PY Piasecki J Should peer reviewers be paid to review academic papers?.Lancet. 2022; 3991601Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (5) Google Scholar raise important issues about the peer review process arising from the assessment of Aczel and colleagues,2Aczel B Szaszi B Holcombe AO A billion-dollar donation: estimating the cost of researchers' time spent on peer review.Res Integr Peer Rev. 2021; 6: 14Crossref PubMed Google Scholar including the under-representation of female reviewers and reviewers from low-income countries, and they suggest that payment for reviews should be trialled to address these issues. Traditionally, agreeing to review manuscripts and grant applications has been largely motivated by philanthropic motives to contribute to a key aspect of biomedical research and the pursuit of knowledge, ultimately offering a potential public benefit.I support the principle of trialling payment for peer review for the reasons argued by Cheah and Piasecki, and for other reasons as well. Peer review activities are usually added to routine commitments in universities, hospitals, and other professional activities and is therefore often done in personal downtime and sometimes postponed, delaying publication. Those paying for peer review could formalise this important function and insist that certain conditions are met before payment. Editors and publishers could insist on a tight timeline to avoid delays that are an irritating feature of the peer review process; they could also insist on greater consistency and professionalism in the format, objectivity, and comprehensiveness of the review.3Yarris LM Gottlieb M Scott K et al.Academic primer series: key papers about peer review.West J Emerg Med. 2017; 18: 721-728Crossref PubMed Scopus (8) Google Scholar, 4Gerwing TG Allen Gerwing AM Avery-Gomm S Choi CY Clements JC Rash JA Quantifying professionalism in peer review.Res Integr Peer Rev. 2020; 5: 9Crossref PubMed Google Scholar These recommendations might substantially speed up the process and enhance the quality of peer review.With the move to open access publishing, substantial page charges are increasingly incurred by authors. Payment for peer review might theoretically increase those costs, but the burden should be borne by publishers who have availed of the peer review process to generate noteworthy profits.5Buranyi S Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?.https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business-scientific-publishing-bad-for-scienceDate: June 27, 2017Date accessed: May 19, 2022Google Scholar These profits are largely at the expense of authors and researchers, peer reviewers, and editors, who contribute considerable time and intellectual input to the process, with no rare payment or honoraria.Finally, formal support for peer review by universities is long overdue. Academics ought to be expected to contribute to the peer review and be held accountable when not doing so.6Humphreys H Obligations of academia in peer review.J R Coll Physicians Edinb. 2019; 49: 262-263Crossref PubMed Google Scholar University grant income and research assessments are supported by the peer review process, but the implications of this and its valuable role in academia and scholarship are not sufficiently recognised by the university sector.I declare no competing interests other than being an author, peer reviewer, and editor for over 30 years. Phaik Y Cheah and Jan Piasecki1Cheah PY Piasecki J Should peer reviewers be paid to review academic papers?.Lancet. 2022; 3991601Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (5) Google Scholar raise important issues about the peer review process arising from the assessment of Aczel and colleagues,2Aczel B Szaszi B Holcombe AO A billion-dollar donation: estimating the cost of researchers' time spent on peer review.Res Integr Peer Rev. 2021; 6: 14Crossref PubMed Google Scholar including the under-representation of female reviewers and reviewers from low-income countries, and they suggest that payment for reviews should be trialled to address these issues. Traditionally, agreeing to review manuscripts and grant applications has been largely motivated by philanthropic motives to contribute to a key aspect of biomedical research and the pursuit of knowledge, ultimately offering a potential public benefit. I support the principle of trialling payment for peer review for the reasons argued by Cheah and Piasecki, and for other reasons as well. Peer review activities are usually added to routine commitments in universities, hospitals, and other professional activities and is therefore often done in personal downtime and sometimes postponed, delaying publication. Those paying for peer review could formalise this important function and insist that certain conditions are met before payment. Editors and publishers could insist on a tight timeline to avoid delays that are an irritating feature of the peer review process; they could also insist on greater consistency and professionalism in the format, objectivity, and comprehensiveness of the review.3Yarris LM Gottlieb M Scott K et al.Academic primer series: key papers about peer review.West J Emerg Med. 2017; 18: 721-728Crossref PubMed Scopus (8) Google Scholar, 4Gerwing TG Allen Gerwing AM Avery-Gomm S Choi CY Clements JC Rash JA Quantifying professionalism in peer review.Res Integr Peer Rev. 2020; 5: 9Crossref PubMed Google Scholar These recommendations might substantially speed up the process and enhance the quality of peer review. With the move to open access publishing, substantial page charges are increasingly incurred by authors. Payment for peer review might theoretically increase those costs, but the burden should be borne by publishers who have availed of the peer review process to generate noteworthy profits.5Buranyi S Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?.https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business-scientific-publishing-bad-for-scienceDate: June 27, 2017Date accessed: May 19, 2022Google Scholar These profits are largely at the expense of authors and researchers, peer reviewers, and editors, who contribute considerable time and intellectual input to the process, with no rare payment or honoraria. Finally, formal support for peer review by universities is long overdue. Academics ought to be expected to contribute to the peer review and be held accountable when not doing so.6Humphreys H Obligations of academia in peer review.J R Coll Physicians Edinb. 2019; 49: 262-263Crossref PubMed Google Scholar University grant income and research assessments are supported by the peer review process, but the implications of this and its valuable role in academia and scholarship are not sufficiently recognised by the university sector. I declare no competing interests other than being an author, peer reviewer, and editor for over 30 years. Should peer reviewers be paid to review academic papers?Aczel and colleagues estimated that the total time that reviewers worked on peer reviews globally was over 100 million hours in 2020.1 The peer review system in academic publishing is not only time consuming and costly but has many other flaws, including biased reviews, inconsistency, absence of reward, difficulty in finding reviewers, and slowness.2,3 These flaws hamper scientific progress, career progress, and might even cost lives. Another problem, which is rarely addressed, is that evidence suggests that the number of reviews contributed by high-income countries is higher than the number contributed by low-income countries per published paper, although there are no extensive empirical data available. Full-Text PDF