Abstract
Peer review is commonly recognized among the cornerstones of the scientific publishing system and, less narrowly, of scientific production in general. Although it plays such a fundamental role, peer review is carried out by academics for free. In other words, if a scientific publication generates revenues and profits—as usually happens for the journal articles accessible behind a paywall—reviewers neither participate in sharing the pie nor enjoy the banquet. Nevertheless, some publishers offer rewards for the peer review activity. Here I delve into the Elsevier’s reward scheme and argue that, given how it works, the implicit money value of peer review is likely to be positive for the publisher, but it translates in a real value that is close or equal to zero for the reviewers. Accordingly, I propose an alternative reward scheme that, essentially, reallocate a portion of the two-digit profit rates that main publishers currently achieve.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
Bohannon, J. (2013). Who’s afraid of peer review? Science, 342(6154), 60–65. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.342.6154.60.
Bornmann, L. (2011). Scientific peer review. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 45(1), 197–245. https://doi.org/10.1002/aris.2011.1440450112.
Casnici, N., Grimaldo, F., Gilbert, N., & Squazzoni, F. (2017). Attitudes of referees in a multidisciplinary journal: An empirical analysis. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(7), 1763–1771. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23665.
Chang, J., & Lai, C. (2001). Is it worthwhile to pay referees? Southern Economic Journal, 68(2), 457–463.
Chetty, R., Saez, E., & Sandor, L. (2014). What policies increase prosocial behavior? An experiment with referees at the journal of public economics. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 28(3), 169–188. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.28.3.169.
Engers, M., & Gans, J. S. (1998). Why referees are not paid (Enough). The American Economic Review, 88(5), 1341–1349.
Ferguson, C., Marcus, A., & Oransky, I. (2014). The peer-review scam. Nature, 515(7528), 480–482. https://doi.org/10.1038/515480a.
Freedman, C. (2000). Do economic journals obey economic prescriptions? Review of Industrial Organization, 17(4), 371–384.
Gneezy, U., & Rustichini, A. (2000). Pay enough or don’t pay at all. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(3), 791–810. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355300554917.
Grainger, D. W. (2007). Peer review as professional responsibility. A quality control system only as good as the participants. Biomaterials, 28(34), 5199–5203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.07.004.
Hamermesh, D. S. (1994). Facts and myths about refereeing. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(1), 153–163. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.8.1.153.
Harrison, D. (2002). Obligations and obfuscations in the review process. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1079–1084. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2002.9265944.
Haug, C. J. (2015). Peer-review fraud—hacking the scientific publication process. The New England Journal of Medicine, 373, 2393–2395. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1512330.
Ho, R. C.-M., Mak, K.-K., Tao, R., Lu, Y., Day, J. R., & Pan, F. (2013). Views on the peer review system of biomedical journals: an online survey of academics from high-ranking universities. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 13, 74. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-74.
Jirschitzka, J., Oeberst, A., Göllner, R., et al. (2017). Inter-rater reliability and validity of peer reviews in an interdisciplinary field. Scientometrics, 113(2), 1059–1092. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2516-6.
Lee, C. J., Sugimoto, C. R., Zhang, G., & Cronin, B. (2013). Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(1), 2–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22784.
Neff, B. D., & Olden, J. D. (2006). Is peer review a game of chance? BioScience, 56(4), 333–340. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2006)56[333:IPRAGO]2.0.CO;2.
Nicholas, D., Watkinson, A., Jamali, H. R., Herman, E., Tenopir, C., Volentine, R., et al. (2015). Peer review: Still king in the digital age. Learned Publishing, 28, 15–21. https://doi.org/10.1087/20150104.
Northcraft, G. B., & Tenbrunsel, A. E. (2011). Effective matrices, decision frames, and cooperation in volunteer dilemmas: A theoretical perspective on academic peer review. Organization Science, 22(5), 1277–1285. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0607.
Pitsoulis, A., & Schnellenbach, J. (2012). On property rights and incentives in academic publishing. Research Policy, 41(8), 1440–1447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.005.
Resnik, D. B., Gutierrez-Ford, C., & Peddada, S. (2008). Perceptions of ethical problems with scientific journal peer review: An exploratory study. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14(3), 305–310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-008-9059-4.
Seeber, M., & Bacchelli, A. (2017). Does single blind peer review hinder newcomers? Scientometrics, 113(1), 567–585. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2264-7.
Squazzoni, F., Bravo, G., & Takács, K. (2013). Does incentive provision increase the quality of peer review? An experimental study. Research Policy, 42(1), 287–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.04.014.
Squazzoni, F., Brezis, E., & Marušić, A. (2017a). Scientometrics of peer review. Scientometrics, 113(1), 501–502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2518-4.
Squazzoni, F., Grimaldo, F., & Marušić, A. (2017b). Journals could share peer-review data. Nature, 546(7658), 352. https://doi.org/10.1038/546352a.
Stigbrand, T. (2017). Retraction note to multiple articles in tumor biology. Tumor Biology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13277-017-5487-6.
Sugimoto, C. R., & Cronin, B. (2013). Citation gamesmanship: Testing for evidence of ego bias in peer review. Scientometrics, 95(3), 851–862. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0845-z.
Thompson, G. D., Aradhyula, S. V., Frisvold, G., & Tronstad, R. (2010). Does paying referees expedite reviews? Results of a natural experiment. Southern Economic Journal, 76(3), 678–692. https://doi.org/10.4284/sej.2010.76.3.678.
Tite, L., & Schroter, S. (2007). Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 61(1), 9–12. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2006.049817.
Wilhite, A. W., & Fong, E. A. (2012). Coercive citation in academic publishing. Science, 335(6086), 542–543. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1212540.
Zaharie, M. A., & Osoian, C. L. (2016). Peer review motivation frames: A qualitative approach. European Management Journal, 34(1), 69–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2015.12.004.
Acknowledgements
The Scopus and ScienceDirect subscription costs discussed in Sect. 2 are gathered from the excerpts of the CRUI-Elsevier subscription agreements published online by the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia: https://siaweb.unimore.it/public/trasparenza/viewblob.aspx?A=A32&ID=3981 and https://siaweb.unimore.it/public/trasparenza/viewblob.aspx?A=A32&ID=1611 (both accessed 25.11.2017). The number of scholars employed at the University of Modena and Reggio Emilia discussed in Sect. 2 is gathered from the Ministry of Education, University and Research and the Cineca consortium: http://cercauniversita.cineca.it/php5/docenti/cerca.php (accessed 25.11.2017). The blog post discussed in Sect. 4 dates back to August 22, 2017, and can be found here: https://scientistseessquirrel.wordpress.com/2017/08/22/can-we-stop-saying-reviewers-are-unpaid/ (accessed 25.11.2017). Here is a stable version: http://www.webcitation.org/6vQhYtwBo. The Elsevier’s revenues and profits discussed in Sect. 4 are gathered from the following source: https://www.thebookseller.com/news/elsevier-profits-3-despite-steeper-print-declines-493781 (accessed 02.12.2017). Here is a stable version of the webpage: http://www.webcitation.org/6vQhnNEEJ. The article published in The Guardian cited in Sects. 4 and 5 can be found here: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business-scientific-publishing-bad-for-science (accessed 02.12.2017). Here is a stable version of the article: http://www.webcitation.org/6vQhzEqX5.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Copiello, S. On the money value of peer review. Scientometrics 115, 613–620 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2664-3
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2664-3