Should journals pay peer reviewes?

Re:Should journals pay peer reviewes? by dash2 on Tuesday March 02, 2021 @08:11AM (#26314909)

I've seen some journals do this. The problem TBH is that the amounts paid aren't enough to be an incentive. Typically £50-100. A good review takes a day to do (maybe more). And academics are probably paid £100/day or more anyway, and aren't very money-motivated.

I think a better approach would be publicity. Academics care about reputation a lot. If good reviewers were acknowledged by the journal, that would be a big incentive, something you could put on your CV.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Should journals pay peer reviewes? by foobarbecue on Tuesday March 02, 2021 @08:38AM (#26315153)

Great point. Offering to pay a small amount could actually reduce the number of people willing to review, since they are currently motivated by a sense of duty. Reminds me of the Freakonomics chapter with the day care: https://freakonomics.com/2013/10/23/what-makes-people-do-wha...

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Should journals pay peer reviewes? by dairyleia on Tuesday March 02, 2021 @08:19AM (#26314973)

This is exactly why they like Publons, it lets them take credit for their reviews.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Should journals pay peer reviewes? by michaelmior on Tuesday March 02, 2021 @03:48PM (#26320447)

Publons is a nice way of keeping track and I use it myself, but I think institutions are generally willing to take faculty at their word with respect to reviews we have completed. (Although my statement here is really just based on anecdotal evidence, so I could be wrong.

[ Parent | on HN ]