By| [美] Gloria Barzak et al.
Effective peer review helps drive disciplinary progress and shape the future development of the field. However, thorough review requires time and effort, which are scarce resources for all scholars. A survey by Publons (a peer review certification platform) found that 42% of review invitations sent by editors are rejected because scholars are too busy.
Scholars are motivated to learn how to conduct peer review and willingly accept invitations and fulfill review responsibilities only if they receive sufficient rewards. Recently, a world publishing company introduced the book "How to Conduct Good Peer Review: Methods and Techniques for Reviewing Academic Journal Articles," which includes a chapter titled "What Can Reviewers Gain from Peer Review?" It introduces the short-term and long-term rewards that scholars can obtain through peer review, helping them decide whether to accept review invitations.
Scholars engaging in effective peer review may receive four different short-term and long-term rewards: financial rewards, personal achievements, improved skills, and enhanced career advantages. Among these, the most important is the improvement of skills, followed by enhanced career advantages.Financial Rewards of Reviewing
Among the four types of rewards, external financial rewards may be the least important. A recent survey showed that only 28% of respondents are interested in the financial rewards of reviewing. Financial rewards typically come in four types: direct payments, discounted publication fees, free access to journal articles for a certain period of time, and the selection of one or more books or journals from the publisher's catalog.Some journals, notably a few prestigious ones, offer remuneration for certain reviews. The most famous is the American Economic Association (AEA) journals, including the renowned "American Economic Review," which rewards $100 for "timely reports." The Journal of Medical Internet Research offers a "review model that may pay selected reviewers for high-quality, rapid peer review comments," provided that the submitting author pays additional publication fees to be in the "fast-track" for publication. Also, all accepted papers are subject to article processing charges upon publication. Many journals from The International Institute for Science, Technology and Education (IISTE) are included in the predatory online open-access journal and publisher list alleged by Beall, and these journals pay $60-$100 for one review. However, they also charge publication fees to authors, exceeding $150 per article.Scholars, especially junior researchers, should carefully evaluate the time invested relative to the quality of reviews received as compensation. If a journal pays $100 and the review takes 4 hours, the hourly rate is $25; if the review takes 6 hours, the hourly rate drops to $16.67. Researchers deciding whether to accept review invitations also consider the reputation of the journal. Particularly when dealing with journals with a business model that heavily relies on authors' fees, the actual collaboration may not bring much benefit to researchers' careers, considering the time and energy invested in publishing papers or conducting reviews for them.There is a call to provide more recognition to peer review work. In response, some publishers offer free access to entire journal collections and discounted book sales for a certain period of time to journal reviewers. For example, Sage Publishers makes journals freely available to reviewers for 60 days and offers books at a 25% discount.
Personal Sense of Achievement from Reviewing
The second major motivation for reviewing is to gain a sense of personal achievement. This is because aspects of the review work can make reviewers feel good, such as enjoying the task, fulfilling professional duty, engaging in altruistic behavior, or satisfying curiosity.Indeed, some scholars enjoy reviewing. In a survey by Ware, 72% of respondents said they "enjoy reading pre-publication papers," while 83% said they "enjoy the feeling of being able to help improve a paper." Especially for senior scholars, reviewing for journals is another form of mentoring, albeit anonymous mentoring.The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and numerous scholars argue that engaging in peer review work is a reciprocal response to having one's own papers reviewed. Some even consider peer review a "privilege." In Ware's survey, 74% of respondents said they participate in reviewing as a way to "give back for other people's reviewing work." In a survey on "Scientific Cognition," an astonishing 90% of respondents stated that they participate in reviewing because they are "highly active in the academic field." We can infer that reviewers participate out of a sense of duty and altruism. Fulfilling these social contracts allows individuals to feel good about themselves.Lastly, some reviewers derive a sense of pleasure from reviewing papers in specific areas due to their professional and personal interests. During multiple rounds of review, this pleasure may intensify as authors convert thoughtful, open responses to reviewer comments into scholarly exchanges. Thus, what might have been perceived as a laborious task of reviewing becomes a pleasurable learning opportunity for reviewers.
Enhancing Skills through Reviewing Work
The third and most important reason for participating in reviews is the opportunity to enhance one's own skills and acquire knowledge related to conducting research, implementing research, and interpreting research. While reviewing, reviewers enter a mode of learning that significantly increases the likelihood of successful publication of their own papers. Even
