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.

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.

Ethics & Bioethics

(in Central Europe)

Journal Information

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 60 60 24
PDF Downloads 10 10 5