It’s been this way for decades, but one of the biggest hurdles in peer-reviewed literature is waiting for peer reviewers. Yes, at the end of the day, no matter how good or important an article is, its processing time and publication date will ultimately be controlled by the peer reviewers who agree to review it. If an editor can’t get a reviewer to agree to review, the processing will be delayed and the only thing you can do is wait and invite more reviewers. Anyone who has worked in peer review or submitted to an academic journal knows the pain of waiting on reviewer responses. This isn’t a dig at peer reviewers as they are usually agreeing to review manuscripts with little gain outside of assisting their peers and furthering their chosen field of research.
The recent ISMTE Global Event took aim at addressing this concern with the session titled “Peer Review Models and Recognition.” The session was led by Dr. Kyle Fox, Ryan Farrell, Jennifer Regala, and Dr. Rob Siemens. The focus of the session was on finding ways to incentivize prompt and complete peer review from a greater variety of reviewers. Arguably, the most controversial method of incentive discussed was monetary compensation. It makes sense in theory. Money makes the world go ’round or at least that’s how the song goes. And this session is not the first discussion of monetary compensation. In 2020, former research scientist James Heathers published his 450 Movement manifesto that proposed $450 as a reasonable compensation for a peer review from a for-profit journal.
However, as the panelists noted, there isn’t an abundance of money in most journal societies to pay every journal reviewer, especially at a price point of $450. Instead, the panel presented other, more cost-effective compensation for reviewers. This includes “premium access” for reviewers. This access can include giving reviewers discounts on publications or discounts for potential meetings and events (if this can be worked out with organizers). However, it was noted by the presenters that these discounts can be costly to the journal as a flat monetary rate and still ultimately puts a dollar amount on reviews, which can dilute the review quality. The presenters instead focused on compensation that can assist with career development for reviewers, particularly those who are early career scientists. This includes publishing reviewer names in journals in a reviewer reception section or including a reviewer of the month recognition in issues, providing reviewers with free or early access to articles before publication, offering reviewers learning opportunities with editors (potentially at conferences if this can be worked out with organizers), and creating a journal reviewer miles program that can provide journal discounts and swag based on reviewer points (similar to frequent flyer miles). Jennifer Regala, who works on the Journal of Urology, stated that her journal provides Continuing Medical Education (CME) credit to all reviewers for completing reviews (recognition that is very attractive to private practice medical doctors), and has journal swag (including a popular fanny pack) available as gifts. She, in fact, worked on a previous journal that successfully instituted a reviewer miles program that was popular and helped with reviewer retention. However, the presenters note that these premium access options require a bit more planning and organization than a flat compensation rate.
Peer review compensation will remain a divisive topic in publishing for the foreseeable future. The current system remains flawed, and reviewers need to feel greater recognition if the industry hopes to maintain the highest level of reviewing standards. Whether the compensation is financial or through industry advancement, reviewers need to be incentivized to encourage them to remain active in the peer review process. What compensation methods would encourage you to review for a journal? Let us know in the comments below.
By: Chris Moffitt
Chris is a Managing Editor at Technica Editorial
