Peer review involves experts in a particular field evaluating and critiquing research papers before they are published in journals or presented at conferences. Yet, despite its importance, many peer reviewers do not receive any monetary compensation for their time and expertise. One of the most commonly asked questions we encounter from researchers is simply “What is payment for peer review” and “Why can’t I get paid for peer review?”
In this blog post, we will explore the reasons behind the lack of payment for peer review and examine potential solutions and alternatives. Because, although peer reviewers feel hard done by and often exploited by journals and publishers, actually about 60% of all published content (books and journals) in 2023 will involve some kind of recompense: APC tokens, defrayed publishing fees, or credits from ReviewerCredits.
The Unpaid Labor of Peer Review
Peer reviewing is a time-consuming and intellectually demanding task. Reviewers are asked to read and evaluate manuscripts, provide constructive feedback, and ensure that the research meets the standards of the journal or conference. This process can take hours, and sometimes even days, depending on the complexity of the work being reviewed.
So, why are so many peer reviewers not compensated for their efforts? Several factors contribute to this phenomenon:
- Tradition: The practice of unpaid peer review has a long history in academia. It is seen as a professional duty and a way for researchers to contribute to their academic communities.
- Limited Resources: Many academic journals and conferences operate on limited budgets, especially those that are not-for-profit or have a narrow readership. Allocating funds for reviewer compensation may strain their resources.
- Voluntary Nature: Peer review is often considered a voluntary service provided by researchers to maintain the integrity of their field. It is viewed as part of one’s professional responsibilities.
- Potential Conflicts of Interest: Paying peer reviewers may raise concerns about conflicts of interest, as reviewers may have financial incentives to favor certain authors or research outcomes.
- Alternative Rewards: Reviewers may receive non-monetary rewards, such as recognition, career advancement, and the opportunity to stay informed about the latest research in their field.
The Costs of Unpaid Peer Review
While unpaid peer review has its merits, there are also significant drawbacks to this system:
- Time and Effort: Peer reviewing takes time and effort that could be spent on other research or professional activities. For early-career researchers and those with heavy workloads, this can be particularly burdensome.
- Inequity: Not all researchers have equal access to the resources necessary to engage in unpaid peer review. This can disproportionately affect scholars from underrepresented backgrounds or institutions with fewer resources.
- Quality and Motivation: The lack of compensation may reduce the motivation of reviewers to provide thorough and timely reviews, potentially impacting the quality of the peer review process.
- Expertise Drain: Overburdened with peer review requests, some researchers may decline to participate, leading to an overreliance on a smaller pool of experts and a potential “brain drain” from the system.
Potential Solutions and Alternatives
Honoraria: Some journals and conferences offer token honoraria or small payments to peer reviewers as a gesture of appreciation for their time and expertise. While these payments may not fully compensate for the effort involved, they acknowledge the value of reviewers’ contributions.
Institutional Support: Academic institutions and funding agencies could consider providing financial support or incentives for researchers who engage in peer review. This could be in the form of grants, awards, or professional development opportunities.
- Diversifying Reviewer Pools: Journals and conferences can take steps to diversify their reviewer pools, ensuring that a broader range of voices is heard in the peer review process. This may involve actively recruiting reviewers from underrepresented groups.
- Transparent Reviewer Recognition: Journals and conferences can publicly recognize the contributions of peer reviewers by listing their names and affiliations on published articles or conference proceedings. This recognition can serve as a form of compensation.
- Peer Reviewer Training: Providing training and resources to peer reviewers can help them perform their duties more efficiently and effectively, reducing the time burden.
- Alternative Models: Some organizations are exploring alternative models of peer review, such as crowd-sourced review or post-publication review, where reviewers and authors engage in open discussions about the research after it is published.
Balancing the Scales with ReviewerCredits
Ultimately, the issue of compensation for peer review is a complex one, with no one-size-fits-all solution. It’s important to strike a balance between recognizing the value of reviewers’ time and expertise and preserving the integrity and impartiality of the peer review process.
While monetary compensation may not be feasible for all journals and conferences, finding creative ways to acknowledge and reward peer reviewers is essential. One solution is ReviewerCredits: A combination of incentives, recognition, and clear certification for peer reviewers. Our goal is to create a system that is fair, sustainable, and inclusive, where researchers are motivated to provide high-quality reviews without undue burden.
The question of why peer reviewers are often not paid raises important issues about equity, recognition, and the sustainability of the peer review system. As the academic community continues to grapple with these challenges, it is crucial to engage in thoughtful discussions and explore innovative solutions to ensure that the peer review process remains robust and serves the best interests of science and scholarship.