出版商和期刊对同行评议的互惠性:没有那么多。

IF 2.8 1区 哲学 Q1 MEDICAL ETHICS
David Moher, Anna Catharina Vieira Armond
{"title":"出版商和期刊对同行评议的互惠性:没有那么多。","authors":"David Moher, Anna Catharina Vieira Armond","doi":"10.1080/08989621.2025.2450451","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Peer reviewers provide a critical role in helping journals keep publishing. To understand the rewards and incentives offered to peer reviewers, we assessed what journals/publishers offered to one peer reviewer in biomedicine over a 1-month period (June 2023). After receiving 88 peer reviewer invitations, we noted that incentives were minimal. They include access to journal/publisher peer review training materials, reduced author processing charges of future article submissions, and free access to the journal/publisher website. Depending on the acceptance rate (30% or 50%) of recommendations to publish the article, peer review from this sample could generate anywhere from $USD 897,000 to $USD 1.45 million dollars when annualized. However, little, if any of this revenue is shared directly or indirectly with peer reviewers. With almost no reciprocity in the peer review process, journals and their publishers need to promote and establish more reciprocity in a system that currently largely favors them disproportionately. This study is an anecdotal perspective of one peer reviewer's experience over a single month. While anecdotal, these findings highlight issues about the fairness and sustainability of the peer review system. We encourage others to expand on what we have done and include more empirical investigations.</p>","PeriodicalId":50927,"journal":{"name":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","volume":" ","pages":"1-6"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Publisher and journal reciprocity for peer review: Not so much.\",\"authors\":\"David Moher, Anna Catharina Vieira Armond\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/08989621.2025.2450451\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Peer reviewers provide a critical role in helping journals keep publishing. To understand the rewards and incentives offered to peer reviewers, we assessed what journals/publishers offered to one peer reviewer in biomedicine over a 1-month period (June 2023). After receiving 88 peer reviewer invitations, we noted that incentives were minimal. They include access to journal/publisher peer review training materials, reduced author processing charges of future article submissions, and free access to the journal/publisher website. Depending on the acceptance rate (30% or 50%) of recommendations to publish the article, peer review from this sample could generate anywhere from $USD 897,000 to $USD 1.45 million dollars when annualized. However, little, if any of this revenue is shared directly or indirectly with peer reviewers. With almost no reciprocity in the peer review process, journals and their publishers need to promote and establish more reciprocity in a system that currently largely favors them disproportionately. This study is an anecdotal perspective of one peer reviewer's experience over a single month. While anecdotal, these findings highlight issues about the fairness and sustainability of the peer review system. We encourage others to expand on what we have done and include more empirical investigations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50927,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-6\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2025.2450451\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Accountability in Research-Policies and Quality Assurance","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/08989621.2025.2450451","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICAL ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

同行审稿人在帮助期刊保持出版方面发挥着关键作用。为了了解同行审稿人获得的奖励和激励,我们评估了期刊/出版商在1个月内(2023年6月)向一位生物医学同行审稿人提供的奖励和激励。在收到88位同行评审邀请后,我们注意到激励机制是最小的。它们包括访问期刊/出版商同行评议培训材料,减少作者对未来文章提交的处理费用,以及免费访问期刊/出版商网站。根据发表文章的推荐的接受率(30%或50%),该样本的同行评议每年可产生897,000美元至145万美元不等的收入。然而,直接或间接与同行审稿人分享的收入很少。由于同行评议过程中几乎没有互惠,期刊及其出版商需要在一个目前在很大程度上不成比例地偏袒他们的系统中促进和建立更多的互惠。这项研究是对一位同行审稿人在一个月内的经历的一个轶事视角。虽然这些发现是轶事,但它们突出了同行评议制度的公平性和可持续性问题。我们鼓励其他人扩展我们所做的工作,并包括更多的实证调查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Publisher and journal reciprocity for peer review: Not so much.

Peer reviewers provide a critical role in helping journals keep publishing. To understand the rewards and incentives offered to peer reviewers, we assessed what journals/publishers offered to one peer reviewer in biomedicine over a 1-month period (June 2023). After receiving 88 peer reviewer invitations, we noted that incentives were minimal. They include access to journal/publisher peer review training materials, reduced author processing charges of future article submissions, and free access to the journal/publisher website. Depending on the acceptance rate (30% or 50%) of recommendations to publish the article, peer review from this sample could generate anywhere from $USD 897,000 to $USD 1.45 million dollars when annualized. However, little, if any of this revenue is shared directly or indirectly with peer reviewers. With almost no reciprocity in the peer review process, journals and their publishers need to promote and establish more reciprocity in a system that currently largely favors them disproportionately. This study is an anecdotal perspective of one peer reviewer's experience over a single month. While anecdotal, these findings highlight issues about the fairness and sustainability of the peer review system. We encourage others to expand on what we have done and include more empirical investigations.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
14.70%
发文量
49
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance is devoted to the examination and critical analysis of systems for maximizing integrity in the conduct of research. It provides an interdisciplinary, international forum for the development of ethics, procedures, standards policies, and concepts to encourage the ethical conduct of research and to enhance the validity of research results. The journal welcomes views on advancing the integrity of research in the fields of general and multidisciplinary sciences, medicine, law, economics, statistics, management studies, public policy, politics, sociology, history, psychology, philosophy, ethics, and information science. All submitted manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by the Editor, and if found suitable for further consideration, to peer review by independent, anonymous expert referees.
×
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