Should reviewers be paid

Should Peer Reviewers Be Paid?

by

Table of Contents

Introduction

Should peer reviewers be paid? 

Peer review is a cornerstone of academic publishing. It’s the process that separates rigorous, high-quality research from the not-so-rigorous, and it helps maintain the integrity of science. However, there’s a growing debate about whether the researchers who volunteer their time and expertise to review manuscripts should be compensated for their efforts. After all, peer reviewers are often busy academics with demanding schedules. Yet, despite the critical nature of their work, they rarely receive any form of monetary compensation.

Currently, peer reviewing is typically done voluntarily. Scholars take on this extra responsibility without pay, often to “give back” to the academic community or stay up-to-date with cutting-edge research. But is this model sustainable? Should peer reviewers get paid for their work? And what would happen to the academic publishing landscape if they were?

The write-up examines the various perspectives on the pros and cons of paying peer reviewers.

The Current Landscape of Peer Review

Before we discuss whether peer reviewers should be paid, let’s first briefly examine what peer review involves and why it’s considered so important.

In academic publishing, peer review typically happens in three stages:

  1. Submission: A researcher submits their paper to an academic journal.
  2. Evaluation: The journal editor sends the manuscript to two or more experts in the field. These reviewers assess the paper’s quality, methodology, originality, and contribution to the field.
  3. Decision: Based on the reviewers’ feedback, the editor decides whether to accept, revise, or reject the paper.

This process is the gold standard for ensuring that published research is accurate, valuable, and trustworthy. Reviewers spend hours or even days evaluating a manuscript, poring every detail, checking citations, and sometimes running calculations. Yet, despite this time-consuming work, they rarely get any financial compensation.

The Argument for Paying Peer Reviewers

Let’s start with the case for paying peer reviewers. After all, peer review is labor-intensive work that requires specialized expertise. Here are a few compelling reasons why some argue reviewers should be compensated:

1. Time and Effort

Reviewing a paper isn’t a five-minute job. It’s often a meticulous process involving careful reading, thoughtful critique, and sometimes extensive feedback. For academics already juggling teaching, grant writing, and their own research, the additional burden of peer review can be overwhelming. Many spend countless hours reviewing papers without any reward other than the satisfaction of contributing to their field. Paying reviewers could be a way to compensate them fairly for their time and effort.

2. Improving the Quality of Reviews

Let’s face it: not all peer reviews are created equal. Some are insightful and constructive, while others are rushed and superficial. By offering financial incentives, journals could attract more dedicated reviewers who take the process seriously and invest the time needed to provide thorough feedback. In theory, paying reviewers might lead to higher-quality reviews, benefiting authors, editors, and the broader scientific community.

3. Alleviating the Burden on a Small Group of Reviewers

A common challenge in academia is the overburdening of certain individuals with review requests. Well-known researchers or experts in niche fields often get asked to review far more papers than their peers. If reviewers were paid, journals might have a better chance of spreading the workload evenly, as compensation could entice more people to participate. 

Additionally, young academics, who are often asked to review without the recognition or compensation that established researchers enjoy, might be more willing to engage in peer review if there’s a financial reward.

4. Recognizing Peer Review as a Legitimate Contribution

Peer review should be formally recognized as a critical part of academic work. Like writing papers or securing grants, peer review is essential for advancing science. However, in many cases, peer review isn’t factored into academic career evaluations. Offering financial compensation could serve as a tangible acknowledgment of the importance of this work. It would signal that peer review is a valued, legitimate contribution to the academic ecosystem—not just an unpaid side gig.

The Argument Against Paying Peer Reviewers

While the idea of paying peer reviewers may sound appealing, it’s not without its downsides. Here are a few reasons why some academics and publishers oppose the idea:

1. The Academic Culture of “Giving Back”

One of the most common arguments against paying peer reviewers is that the academic community has traditionally functioned on a system of reciprocity. Scholars review papers because they know others will review them when the time comes. It’s a way of “giving back” to the community. Introducing payments could erode this sense of duty and cooperation, turning a collaborative process into a transactional one.

2. Funding Issues

Academic publishing is already costly, and journals (especially smaller, non-profit ones) may not have the budget to pay reviewers. Even the largest academic publishers might avoid adding another expense to their tight margins. Charging authors higher article processing charges or increasing the price of journal subscriptions could offset this cost. Still, it also creates additional barriers to publishing, especially for researchers from underfunded institutions or countries.

3. Risk of Bias and Conflicts of Interest

Paying peer reviewers might unintentionally create conflicts of interest. If reviewers know they’re being compensated, there’s a risk they could rush through reviews or approve papers they wouldn’t otherwise accept just to keep the work coming. There’s also the concern that reviewers could become selective about which journals they review for, favoring those that offer better pay rather than those that align with their expertise or research interests. This could undermine the objectivity and impartiality that peer review is supposed to uphold.

4. The Risk of Commodifying Peer Review

If we start paying for peer reviews, what’s next? 

Should reviewers be paid

Will the academic ecosystem begin to commodify other voluntary contributions, like serving on editorial boards or organizing conferences? Some worry that paying peer reviewers could set a precedent that might lead to commercializing other aspects of academic life, creating a system where only those who can afford to pay for services or have access to wealthy institutions can fully participate.

Potential Alternatives to Direct Payment

If paying peer reviewers in cash isn’t the solution, are there other ways to reward them for their efforts? The academic community has proposed several alternative solutions to compensate reviewers without directly paying them. Here are a few ideas:

1. Academic Recognition and Credits

One way to incentivize peer reviewers is to recognize their work formally. Some journals already offer certificates or public acknowledgment of reviewers’ contributions, but this could be taken a step further. For instance, peer review work could be formally included in academic tenure and promotion evaluations. If reviewers knew their efforts would be counted toward their academic achievements, they might be more willing to take on the task.

2. Subscription Discounts or Free Access

Another potential reward is to offer reviewers free or discounted access to journals or databases. Many academics struggle with the rising costs of accessing research papers, so this could be a meaningful perk. It wouldn’t directly compensate reviewers but give them something valuable in return for their efforts.

3. Professional Development Opportunities

Some journals or publishers could offer reviewers free or discounted access to professional development courses, workshops, or conferences. These opportunities could enhance their skills, improve their careers, and make reviewing more attractive without directly involving monetary payment.

4. Peer Review Services and Platforms

In recent years, several online platforms have emerged that offer credits for reviewing papers. Reviewers can accumulate these credits and exchange them for various rewards, such as paying for their own open-access publications or donating to a charity. These platforms provide a middle ground between unpaid and paid peer review, offering a more formal recognition of reviewers’ time without turning the process into a fully transactional one.

What Would Happen If Peer Reviewers Got Paid?

What might change in the academic publishing landscape if peer reviewers were suddenly compensated for their work? It’s a tricky question, and the answer depends largely on how such a system would be implemented.

1. More Reviewers, But at a Cost

One immediate effect could be an increase in the number of people willing to review. Financial incentives encourage more academics to participate, particularly those currently hesitant due to time constraints. However, the flip side is that this could lead to journals charging higher fees to authors, which might restrict access to publishing opportunities—especially for researchers from underfunded institutions or the Global South.

2. Potential for Better Quality (Or Not?)

As mentioned earlier, paying reviewers could result in better-quality reviews. But that’s not guaranteed. If reviewers are motivated primarily by money rather than a genuine interest in improving the literature, we might end up with faster but lower-quality reviews. Journals would need to implement strict guidelines and oversight to ensure that reviewers aren’t rushing through papers just to earn a paycheck.

3. Changes to Academic Culture

Introducing payments for peer reviewers could fundamentally change the culture of academia. Whether that’s a good or bad thing depends on who you ask. Some argue that it could professionalize the process and provide recognition for what is, after all, skilled labor. Others fear that it could erode the sense of academic community and collegiality that has traditionally underpinned the peer review process.

Conclusion

So, should peer reviewers get paid? There’s no easy answer. On the one hand, peer reviewing is undeniably hard work that takes time and expertise, and it seems only fair to compensate those who do it. On the other hand, paying peer reviewers could introduce new challenges—like funding issues, conflicts of interest, and the potential erosion of the cooperative spirit that defines academic publishing.

Ultimately, the question may not be whether peer reviewers should get paid but how we can better recognize and reward their contributions. Whether through formal recognition, professional development opportunities, or some other form of compensation, it’s clear that peer reviewers play a crucial role in maintaining the integrity of academic research. They deserve to be acknowledged—one way or another.

Leave a comment