{"title":"记住审稿人。","authors":"Fawad Javed, Zain Uddin Ahmed","doi":"10.1007/s11673-025-10459-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Peer review is the cornerstone of scholarly publishing, ensuring the quality and credibility of academic research. As Article Processing Charges (APC) continue to rise, many journals provide only symbolic rewards to reviewers, such as certificates of appreciation and/or minimal discount vouchers, raising ethical concerns about fairness and the marginalization of scholarly labour. This commentary explores the disparity between the financial gains of journals and the no compensation for reviewers, who are crucial to maintaining research standards. It questions whether the current model appropriately recognizes the reviewer's contributions and advocates for actual compensation structures, including financial rewards, substantial reductions in APC, and professional recognition. Additionally, the article highlights the impact of these inequities on early-career researchers and scholars from less affluent regions, suggesting that equitable compensation could improve the sustainability and efficiency of the peer review process. By addressing these ethical concerns, scholarly publishing can better support the essential work of reviewers while fostering a more just and inclusive scholarly environment.</p>","PeriodicalId":50252,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Remembering the Reviewers.\",\"authors\":\"Fawad Javed, Zain Uddin Ahmed\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s11673-025-10459-y\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Peer review is the cornerstone of scholarly publishing, ensuring the quality and credibility of academic research. As Article Processing Charges (APC) continue to rise, many journals provide only symbolic rewards to reviewers, such as certificates of appreciation and/or minimal discount vouchers, raising ethical concerns about fairness and the marginalization of scholarly labour. This commentary explores the disparity between the financial gains of journals and the no compensation for reviewers, who are crucial to maintaining research standards. It questions whether the current model appropriately recognizes the reviewer's contributions and advocates for actual compensation structures, including financial rewards, substantial reductions in APC, and professional recognition. Additionally, the article highlights the impact of these inequities on early-career researchers and scholars from less affluent regions, suggesting that equitable compensation could improve the sustainability and efficiency of the peer review process. By addressing these ethical concerns, scholarly publishing can better support the essential work of reviewers while fostering a more just and inclusive scholarly environment.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50252,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-025-10459-y\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Bioethical Inquiry","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11673-025-10459-y","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Peer review is the cornerstone of scholarly publishing, ensuring the quality and credibility of academic research. As Article Processing Charges (APC) continue to rise, many journals provide only symbolic rewards to reviewers, such as certificates of appreciation and/or minimal discount vouchers, raising ethical concerns about fairness and the marginalization of scholarly labour. This commentary explores the disparity between the financial gains of journals and the no compensation for reviewers, who are crucial to maintaining research standards. It questions whether the current model appropriately recognizes the reviewer's contributions and advocates for actual compensation structures, including financial rewards, substantial reductions in APC, and professional recognition. Additionally, the article highlights the impact of these inequities on early-career researchers and scholars from less affluent regions, suggesting that equitable compensation could improve the sustainability and efficiency of the peer review process. By addressing these ethical concerns, scholarly publishing can better support the essential work of reviewers while fostering a more just and inclusive scholarly environment.
期刊介绍:
The JBI welcomes both reports of empirical research and articles that increase theoretical understanding of medicine and health care, the health professions and the biological sciences. The JBI is also open to critical reflections on medicine and conventional bioethics, the nature of health, illness and disability, the sources of ethics, the nature of ethical communities, and possible implications of new developments in science and technology for social and cultural life and human identity. We welcome contributions from perspectives that are less commonly published in existing journals in the field and reports of empirical research studies using both qualitative and quantitative methodologies.
The JBI accepts contributions from authors working in or across disciplines including – but not limited to – the following:
-philosophy-
bioethics-
economics-
social theory-
law-
public health and epidemiology-
anthropology-
psychology-
feminism-
gay and lesbian studies-
linguistics and discourse analysis-
cultural studies-
disability studies-
history-
literature and literary studies-
environmental sciences-
theology and religious studies