Free editors and peers: squeezing the lemon dry

Open access

Abstract

In this opinion piece, some of the practices of academic publication in the biomedical field related to the rewarding, or the lack thereof, of peer reviewers are described and discussed. The role and possibly exploitative relationship of mainstream, established publishers of prestigious journals towards their contributors (authors), and peer reviewers is considered. In addition, the role and accountability of publishers and contributors in “predatory” journals is assessed. Professionals who are recruited by the publishing industry, especially the for-profit industry, either as peer reviewers or editors, to complete a professional task, should be rewarded financially as professionals, as for other sectors of the economy, and not simply exploited for free. Points systems or discounts off a publisher’s products do not constitute sufficient, or fair, compensation.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • ARNS M. (2014): Open access is tiring out peer reviewers. In: Nature 515(7528) p. 467.

  • BEALL J. (2016): Predatory journals: ban predators from the scientific record. In: Nature 534(7607) p. 326.

  • BELLUZ J. PLUMER B. & RESNICK B. (2016): The 7 biggest problems facing science according to 270 scientists. [online] [Retrieved September 27 2016] Available at: http://www.vox.com/2016/7/14/12016710/science-challeges-research-funding-peer-review-process

  • CALLAWAY E. (2016): Beat it impact factor! Publishing elite turns against controversial metric. In: Nature 535(7611) pp. 210–211.

  • CMJ (Croatian Medical Journal) (2016): About Journal. [online] [Retrieved September 27 2016] Available at: http://cmj.hr/default.aspx?id=26

  • CORNELIUSSEN S.T. (2015): Should journals pay peer reviewers $50 per hour? In: Physics Today. [online] [Retrieved September 27 2016] Available at: http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/magazine/physicstoday/news/10.1063/PT.5.8092

  • CSISZAR A. (2016): Troubled form the start. In: Nature 532(7599) pp. 306–308.

  • DADKHAH M. MALISZEWSKI T. & TEIXEIRA da SILVA J. A. (2016): Hijacked journals hijacked web-sites journal phishing misleading metrics and predatory publishing: actual and potential threats to academic integrity and publishing ethics. In: Forensic Science Medicine and Pathology 12(3) pp. 353–362.

  • eLIFE (2016): About. [online] [Retrieved September 27 2016] Available at: https://elifesciences.org/about

  • FERREIRA C. BASTILLE-ROUSSEAU G. BENNETT A. M. ELLINGTON E. H. TERWISSEN C. AUSTIN C. BORLESTEAN A. BOUDREAU M. R. CHAN K. FORSYTHE A. HOSSIE T. J. LANDOLT K. LONGHI J. OTIS J.-A. PEERS M. J. L. RAE J. SEGUIN J. WATT C. WEHTJE M. & MURRAY D. L. (2016): The evolution of peer review as a basis for scientific publication: directional selection towards a robust discipline? In: Biological Reviews 91(3) pp. 597–610.

  • GARG P.K. (2015): Financial incentives to reviewers: double-edged sword. In: Journal of Korean Medical Science 30(6) pp. 832–833.

  • GASPARYAN A. Y. GERASIMOV A. N. VORONOV A. A. & KITAS G. D. (2015a): Rewarding peer reviewers: maintaining the integrity of science communication. In: Journal of Korean Medical Science 30(4) pp. 360–364.

  • GASPARYAN A. Y. GERASIMOV A. N. VORONOV A. A. & KITAS G. D. (2015b): Combined rewarding mechanisms can be implemented to incentivize the best reviewers. In: Journal of Korean Medical Science 30(6) pp. 832–833.

  • JMIR (Journal of Medical Internet Research) (2016): Instructions for authors of JMIR. [online] [Retrieved September 27 2016] Available at: http://www.jmir.org/content/author-instructions#Fast-track

  • LARIVIÈRE V. HAUSTEIN S. & MONGEON P. (2015): The oligopoly of academic publishers in the digital era. In: PLoS ONE 10(6) e0127502.

  • NATURE EDITORIAL (2014): Review rewards. In: Nature 514(7522) p. 274.

  • OPEN ACCESS DIRECTORY (2016): OA journal business models. [online] [Retrieved September 27 2016] Available at: http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/OA_journal_business_models

  • PUBLISHOPENACCESS (2016): Online platforms for recruiting and motivating reviewers. [online] [Retrieved September 27 2016] Available at: http://publishopenaccess.blogspot.jp/2016/01/online-platforms-for-recruiting-and.html

  • PUBLONS (2016): Reviving Peer Review. Speeding Up Science. [online] [Retrieved September 27 2016] Available at: http://prw.publons.com/

  • SCHEKMAN R. (2013): How journals like Nature Cell and Science are damaging science. [online] [Retrieved September 27 2016] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/09/how-journals-nature-science-cell-damage-science

  • SCHUKLENK U. (2015): On peer review. In: Bioethics 29(2) pp. ii–iii.

  • SPIER R. (2002): The history of the peer-review process. In: Trends in Biotechnology 20(8) pp. 357–358.

  • SÜDHOF T.C. (2016): Truth in science publishing: a personal perspective. In: PLoS Biology 14(8) e1002547.

  • TEIXEIRA da SILVA J.A. (2013a): Taxing the intellectual base: should authors foot the publishing bill? In: The Asian and Australasian Journal of Plant Science and Biotechnology 7(Special Issue 1) pp. 111–113.

  • TEIXEIRA da SILVA J.A. (2013b): Responsibilities and rights of authors peer reviewers editors and publishers: a status quo inquiry and assessment. In: The Asian and Australasian Journal of Plant Science and Biotechnology 7(Special Issue 1) pp. 6–15.

  • THÉRÈSE S. & MARTIN B. (2010): Shame scientist! Degradation rituals in science. In: Prometheus 28(2) pp. 97–110.

  • THE COST OF KNOWLEDGE (2016). [online] [Retrieved September 27 2016] Available at: http://thecostofknowledge.com/

  • THE TIMES HIGHER EDUCATION (2016): How long will goodwill in academia last? [online] [Retrieved September 27 2016] Available at: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/how-long-will-goodwill-in-academia-last

  • THE OPEN SCHOLARSHIP INITIATIVE (2016): Elsevier Awarded U.S. Patent for “Online Peer Review System and Method”. [online] [Retrieved September 27 2016] Available at: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/osi2016-25/4REh5gD5Zko/4ZVnBrToAQAJ

  • TITE L. & SCHROTER S. (2007): Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey. In: Journal of Epidemiological Community Health 61(1) pp. 9–12.

Search
Journal information
Impact Factor


CiteScore 2018: 0.35

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.161

Cited By
Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 350 214 2
PDF Downloads 105 71 0