Recognizing and Rewarding Peer-reviewers
Abstract
Peer review (PR) is a relatively recent development though it has become an established part of academic publishing. PR started becoming common in the 1960s and 70s. Peer review can be of different types. It can be blinded or open. The process can be done before publication or after a manuscript is published. Portable reviews, impact neutral PR, collaborative PR, and registered reports are also used. There are challenges with peer review which remains a largely subjective process. Due to increasing number of journals and submissions there is an urgent need for more reviewers, especially from the developing nations and from women. Academic publishing is a lucrative business dominated by a few big publishers. Reviewers should be rewarded financially either directly or through processing charge waivers or through journal and database subscription for their efforts.
References
Ware M. Peer review: Benefits, perceptions and alternatives. Published by Publishing Research Consortium c/o The Publishers Association. [cited 2021 Jul 19].[Link]
Benos DJ, Bashari E, Chaves JM, Gaggar A, Kapoor N, LaFrance M, et al. The ups and downs of peer review. Adv Physiol Educ. 2007;31(2):145–52. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00104.2006
Spier R. The history of the peer-review process. Trends Biotechnol. 2002 ;20(8):357–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0167-7799(02)01985-6
Horbach SPJM, Halffman W. The changing forms and expectations of peer review. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2018;3(1):8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-018-0051
A modest proposal: triple blind review [Internet]. orgtheory.net. 2007 [cited 2021 Jul 19]. Available from: https://orgtheory.wordpress.com/2007/01/23/a-modest-proposal-triple-blind-review/
Walker R, Rocha da Silva P. Emerging trends in peer review—a survey. Front Neurosci [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2021 Jul 18];0. Available from: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnins.2015.00169/full
Smith R. Peer Review: A Flawed Process at the Heart of Science and Journals. J R Soc Med. 2006;99(4):178–82. https://doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.99.4.178
Haffar S, Bazerbachi F, Murad MH. Peer Review Bias: A Critical Review. Mayo Clin Proc. 2019;94(4):670–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2018.09.004
Chawla DS. Huge peer-review study reveals lack of women and non-Westerners. Nature 2018;561;295-6. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-06678-6
Larivière V, Haustein S, Mongeon P. The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era. PLOS ONE. 2015;10:e0127502. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127502
Contributors PG. Academic Publishing is Big Business, And How Blockchain Can Make A Difference [Internet]. [cited 2021 Jul 20]. Available from: https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/academic-publishing-big-business-and-how-blockchain-can-make-difference-2018-07-12
MacDonald F. These Five Companies Control More Than Half of Academic Publishing [Internet]. ScienceAlert. [cited 2021 Jul 20]. Available from: https://www.sciencealert.com/these-five-companies-control-more-than-half-of-academic-publishing
Riley BJ, Jones R. Peer review: acknowledging its value and recognising the reviewers. Br J Gen Pract. 2016;66(653):629–30.
Diamandis EP. Peer review as a business transaction. Nature. 2015;517:145. https://doi.org/10.1038/517145a
Gasparyan AY, Gerasimov AN, Voronov AA, Kitas GD. Rewarding peer reviewers: maintaining the integrity of science communication. J Korean Med Sci. 2015;30:360-4. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2015.30.4.360
JAT da Silva, Katavic V. Free editors and peers: Squeezing the lemon dry. Ethics & Bioethics 2016;6: 203-9. https://doi.org/10.1515/ebce-2016-0011
Demir SB. Predatory journals: Who publishes in them and why? Journal of Informetrics 2018;12:1296-1311.
Cobey KD, Lalu MM, Skidmore B, Ahmadzai N, Grudniewicz A, Moher D. What is a predatory journal? A scoping review. F1000Res. 2018;7:1001. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.15256.2
Hansoti B, Langdorf M, Murphy L. Discriminating between legitimate and predatory open access journals: report from the international federation for emergency medicine research committee. West J Emerg Med. 2016;17:497–507. https://doi.org/10.5811/westjem.2016.7.30328
Copyright (c) 2021 Author
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The author(s) retain the ownership of the copyrights for their work published in the EJMS without any restrictions. Upon submission, the author(s) grants EJMS the right of first publication including the right to display, store, copy, and reuse the published content. The corresponding author, on behalf of all authors, grant a license to do the following;
- to publish the content in all forms, formats, and media (whether known now or created in the future) and identify itself as the original publisher.
- to reproduce, distribute, display, and store in the print as well as online version and repositories.
- to translate the published work into other languages, create adaptations, reprints, include within collections, and create summaries, extracts, and/or, abstracts of the contribution.
- to create any other derivative work(s) based on the contribution.
- to include in any electronic database, links from the contribution to third-party material, wherever it may be located.
The author(s) also grant usage rights to others (readers) under their terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 international (CC BY 4.0) license that allows users to copy and redistribute the materials; remix or build upon the materials even for any lawful purpose even commercially provided that the author(s) and the journal are properly cited, and any changes are indicated.
