Retaining and Rewarding Journal Peer Reviewers

Coupal, Tyler M.; Munk, Peter L.; Lapeña, José Florencio F.; Peh, Wilfred C. G.

doi:10.1016/j.carj.2017.12.006

Cited by 4 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As peer reviewers are a very valuable resource, there are also good grounds for journals to find innovative ways to recognise, retain and reward good peer reviewers. (43) The inaugural Publons Global State of Peer Review, published in 2018, found that authors preferred to submit their manuscripts to journal that adopted blinded peer review rather than one with open peer review. Moreover, peer reviewers were more likely to agree to review for a journal with a blinded peer review policy rather than one using open review.…”

Section: The Way Forwardmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peer review: concepts, variants and controversies

Peh

2022

smedj

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: The Way Forwardmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peer review: concepts, variants and controversies

Peh

2022

smedj

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This recently proposed practice, however, has a significant risk of acceptance bias and therefore has not been adopted. 41…”

Section: Co-authorship Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…During academic meetings, there are sponsored society meetings with social events specifically held to honor the reviewers who can then blend with each other, exchange ideas and promote networking. 3,41,42 Publisher Discounts and Temporary Online Access to Electronic Platforms Some publishers provide discounts for article processing charges, temporary free online access to their platforms, 41 book vouchers to reviewers who will review more than a certain amount of manuscripts per calendar year.…”

Section: Sponsored Social Networking Eventsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Peer-reviewing in Surgical Journals: Revolutionize or Perish?

Chloros

Giannoudis

2021

Annals of Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The gold standard of safe-guarding the quality of published science is peer review. However, this long-standing system has not evolved in today's digital world, where there has been an explosion in the number of publications and surgical journals. A journal's quality depends not only on the quality of papers submitted but is reflected upon the quality of its peer review process. Over the past decade journals are experiencing a rapidly escalating “peer review crisis” with editors struggling in recruiting reliable reviewers who will provide their skilled work for free with ever-diminishing incentives within today's restricted time-constraints. The problem is complex and difficult to solve, but more urgent than ever. Time is valuable and academicians, researchers and clinicians are overburdened and already extremely busy publishing their own research along with their ever growing clinical and administrative duties. Fewer and fewer individuals volunteer to provide their skilled work for free which is expected. The current incentives to review do not have a big impact on one's career and therefore are not realistic effective countermeasures. As the limits of the system are constantly stretched, there will inevitably come a “point of no return” and Surgical Journals will be the ones to first take the hit as there is an overwhelming evidence of burnout in the surgical specialties and the Surgical community is almost 50% smaller than its Medical counterpart. This review identifies the potential causes of the peer-review crisis, outlines the incentives and drawbacks of being a reviewer, summarizes the currently established common practices of rewarding reviewers and the existing and potential solutions to the problem. The magnitude of the problem and unsustainability that will make it perish are discussed along with its current flaws. Finally, recommendations are made to address many of the weaknesses of the system with the hope to revive it.

show abstract

“…The latter point stems from the recognition that the publishing system is, at the moment, one of the few economic activities that does not internalize all of the labour costs involved in the production chain: reviewers and handling editors are not economically rewarded for the important expert work they do for the journals (Van Noorden 2013, Coupal et al 2018). The frequent flyer's programmes of airline companies inspires the system we propose.…”

Section: : 1456-1457 2019mentioning

confidence: 99%