Where are the carrots? A proposal to start crediting peer reviewers for their contribution to science

IF 2.2 3区 管理学 Q2 INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE
Aron Laxdal, Tommy Haugen
{"title":"Where are the carrots? A proposal to start crediting peer reviewers for their contribution to science","authors":"Aron Laxdal,&nbsp;Tommy Haugen","doi":"10.1002/leap.1589","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>\n </p><ul>\n \n <li>The peer review system is viewed by many as being flawed and antiquated.</li>\n \n <li>While it is unlikely that the system will be overhauled completely, some changes seem to be warranted.</li>\n \n <li>Our proposal is to change the incentives to do peer review by making reviews a part of the tenure criteria and valuing reviews as a contribution to the literature.</li>\n \n <li>The proposal would require more transparency than is currently the industry norm to prevent unwanted effects.</li>\n \n <li>We believe these changes would not only increase willingness to review, but also lead to shorter turnaround times and increase the quality of reviews.</li>\n </ul>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":51636,"journal":{"name":"Learned Publishing","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Learned Publishing","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/leap.1589","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

  • The peer review system is viewed by many as being flawed and antiquated.
  • While it is unlikely that the system will be overhauled completely, some changes seem to be warranted.
  • Our proposal is to change the incentives to do peer review by making reviews a part of the tenure criteria and valuing reviews as a contribution to the literature.
  • The proposal would require more transparency than is currently the industry norm to prevent unwanted effects.
  • We believe these changes would not only increase willingness to review, but also lead to shorter turnaround times and increase the quality of reviews.
胡萝卜在哪里?建议开始奖励同行评审者对科学的贡献
我们的建议是改变同行评议的激励机制,将评议作为任期标准的一部分,并将评议作为对文献的贡献加以重视。该建议要求比目前的行业标准更加透明,以防止不必要的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Learned Publishing
Learned Publishing INFORMATION SCIENCE & LIBRARY SCIENCE-
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
17.90%
发文量
72
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信