Experiments indicate that the payment of payment can increase the chance of the researcher’s approval of the review, and in some cases the process is accelerating. Credit
A set of research results provides new evidence of the debate about whether peer auditors should be paid for their time and experience – a raised subject Discussion between researchers.
This month, two data magazines issued their own experiences indicating that submitting payments of about $ 250 for researchers who review the manuscripts speed up the process, without affecting the quality of the reviews. But some specialists warn that this practice can have unintended consequences for science and publishing.
Balazs Aczel, a psychologist at Eötvös Loránd University in Budapest, says, although both experiences are small, they are a good start to collect data on a paid peer review. But he adds that if they pay peer auditors, it remains a “very complicated question.”
Bonus auditors
The pendant review system has been pressured in recent years with the spread of more sciences and scientists face more demands in their time. Magazine editors now find it difficult to secure reviews and some scholars I doubted fairness From their volunteer work on which some very profitable publishing companies depend.
The idea of pushing the peer auditors has been discussed long ago, but a few publishers have chosen on this way so far. Economy magazines have tried the idea in the past, and some medical magazines pay some auditors. Others have adopted less traditional compensation systems: Mega Open-Cess Mega Berge A symbolic system that gives auditors a discount on publishing fees, while another title is paid to auditors in a specially developed currency.
“Obtaining salaries for review is justice”: The magazine pays peer auditors in the encrypted currency
Some researchers fear that providing cash incentives to auditors may reduce the quality of reviews or change the search scene in other unknown ways. But so far, there has been a lack of strong evidence about the potential benefits and defects.
Eat about the effect of pushing peer and editors in the magazine Critical care medicine She launched a six -month experience led by David Massov, a clinical scientist at Queens University in Kingston, Canada. Starting in September 2023, the magazine requested 715 researchers to review the papers. Nearly half of them offered an incentive of $ 250.
The results published in the magazine earlier this month1I found that payment against reviews may improve moderately from the number of acceptable and speed invitations. About 53 % of researchers invite the review when offering payment, compared to 48 % of those who received a non -paid standard. On average, paid reviews came in one day before unpaid reviews. The magazine editors evaluated the reviews from the paid and unpaid auditors and did not find a difference in quality.
Maslove says that the small size of the effect indicates that the money has a limited effect on the motivation of peer auditors to change their behavior. “There can be these other values of peer auditors, whether it is a sense of responsibility, loyalty or because of society.”
Speed feature
A separate experience in the magazine Open BiologyI found a greater impact, albeit with fewer auditors.
For six months starting from July 2024, the editors who cover two areas of the ten topics in the magazine are treated as contractors driven by two systems. The auditors were offered either 600 pounds ($ 776) for a review to review up to three papers in the quarter, or 220 pounds were paid per review. Under this plan, independent auditors will send an invitation to review, which they had to accept or deport within one working day. Once it was accepted, the references had four days to submit the correlation report. A total of 20 manuscripts have been reviewed in this way.