Recognizing and Rewarding Peer-reviewers

DOI: https://doi.org/10.46405/ejms.v3i2.353
Keywords: Data management, Peer-review, Publishing, Research report

Abstract

Peer review (PR) is a relatively recent development though it has become an established part of academic publishing. PR started becoming common in the 1960s and 70s. Peer review can be of different types. It can be blinded or open. The process can be done before publication or after a manuscript is published. Portable reviews, impact neutral PR, collaborative PR, and registered reports are also used. There are challenges with peer review which remains a largely subjective process. Due to increasing number of journals and submissions there is an urgent need for more reviewers, especially from the developing nations and from women. Academic publishing is a lucrative business dominated by a few big publishers. Reviewers should be rewarded financially either directly or through processing charge waivers or through journal and database subscription for their efforts.  

References

Ware M. Peer review: Benefits, perceptions and alternatives. Published by Publishing Research Consortium c/o The Publishers Association. [cited 2021 Jul 19].[Link]

Benos DJ, Bashari E, Chaves JM, Gaggar A, Kapoor N, LaFrance M, et al. The ups and downs of peer review. Adv Physiol Educ. 2007;31(2):145–52. https://doi.org/10.1152/advan.00104.2006

Spier R. The history of the peer-review process. Trends Biotechnol. 2002 ;20(8):357–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0167-7799(02)01985-6

Horbach SPJM, Halffman W. The changing forms and expectations of peer review. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2018;3(1):8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-018-0051

A modest proposal: triple blind review [Internet]. orgtheory.net. 2007 [cited 2021 Jul 19]. Available from: https://orgtheory.wordpress.com/2007/01/23/a-modest-proposal-triple-blind-review/

Walker R, Rocha da Silva P. Emerging trends in peer review—a survey. Front Neurosci [Internet]. 2015 [cited 2021 Jul 18];0. Available from: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnins.2015.00169/full

Smith R. Peer Review: A Flawed Process at the Heart of Science and Journals. J R Soc Med. 2006;99(4):178–82. https://doi.org/10.1258/jrsm.99.4.178

Haffar S, Bazerbachi F, Murad MH. Peer Review Bias: A Critical Review. Mayo Clin Proc. 2019;94(4):670–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2018.09.004

Chawla DS. Huge peer-review study reveals lack of women and non-Westerners. Nature 2018;561;295-6. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-06678-6

Larivière V, Haustein S, Mongeon P. The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era. PLOS ONE. 2015;10:e0127502. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127502

Contributors PG. Academic Publishing is Big Business, And How Blockchain Can Make A Difference [Internet]. [cited 2021 Jul 20]. Available from: https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/academic-publishing-big-business-and-how-blockchain-can-make-difference-2018-07-12

MacDonald F. These Five Companies Control More Than Half of Academic Publishing [Internet]. ScienceAlert. [cited 2021 Jul 20]. Available from: https://www.sciencealert.com/these-five-companies-control-more-than-half-of-academic-publishing

Riley BJ, Jones R. Peer review: acknowledging its value and recognising the reviewers. Br J Gen Pract. 2016;66(653):629–30.

Diamandis EP. Peer review as a business transaction. Nature. 2015;517:145. https://doi.org/10.1038/517145a

Gasparyan AY, Gerasimov AN, Voronov AA, Kitas GD. Rewarding peer reviewers: maintaining the integrity of science communication. J Korean Med Sci. 2015;30:360-4. https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2015.30.4.360

JAT da Silva, Katavic V. Free editors and peers: Squeezing the lemon dry. Ethics & Bioethics 2016;6: 203-9. https://doi.org/10.1515/ebce-2016-0011

Demir SB. Predatory journals: Who publishes in them and why? Journal of Informetrics 2018;12:1296-1311.

Cobey KD, Lalu MM, Skidmore B, Ahmadzai N, Grudniewicz A, Moher D. What is a predatory journal? A scoping review. F1000Res. 2018;7:1001. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.15256.2

Hansoti B, Langdorf M, Murphy L. Discriminating between legitimate and predatory open access journals: report from the international federation for emergency medicine research committee. West J Emerg Med. 2016;17:497–507. https://doi.org/10.5811/westjem.2016.7.30328

Published
2021-08-09
How to Cite
1.
Shankar PR. Recognizing and Rewarding Peer-reviewers. Europasian J Med Sci. [Internet]. 2021Aug.9 [cited 2024May5];3(2):124-6. Available from: https://www.europasianjournals.org/ejms/index.php/ejms/article/view/353
Issue
Vol 3 No 2 (2021): EJMS | July-December Issue 6
Section
Commentary

Copyright (c) 2021 Author

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

All articles published in EJMS are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0). The author(s) as the copyright holder will retain the ownership of the copyrights without any restrictions for their content under the CC-BY 4.0 license, and allow others to copy, use, print, share, modify, and distribute the content of the article even in commercial purpose as long as the original authors and the journal are properly cited. No permission is required from the author/s or the publishers. Appropriate attribution can be provided by simply citing the original article.

On behalf of all the authors, the corresponding author is responsible for completing and returning the agreement form to the editorial office. More information about the terms and conditions, privacy policies, and copyrights can be found on the webpage of the Creative Commons license privacy policy. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/