Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

A financial compensation model could incentivise peer reviewers to provide the optimal amount of effort by rewarding them for their quality reports. Therefore, in this article, we consider peer-reviewed journals with the mission to financially compensate reviewers for delivering quality reports and to ensure affordable access to peer review for every author. In a cross-subsidy scenario of compensated peer review, the mission-driven journals expect all authors to pay for either the standard or a premium peer review. However, using this strategy, the journals offer standard peer review to low-income authors at lower prices, compared with the premium price high-income authors pay for higher-quality peer review. In addition, we also present a buy-one-give-one model of compensated peer review for the mission-driven journals. In this alternative setting, when a high-income author pays for a premium peer review, the journals would donate a certain number of free peer reviews to the low-income authors who are unable to afford them. In this two-tiered system, scholars with access to more funding receive premium treatment, while low-income authors can still access standard peer review similar to what authors currently receive for free. In this article, we show a comparative study between the cross-subsidy and buy-one-give-one models of compensated peer review. We find that a buy-one-give-one scenario provides a higher total sum of financial and social gain than the cross-subsidy scenario either when the mission-driven journals are highly socially responsible or when the social gap between the high-income and the low-income authors is large enough.

Keywords

Compensated peer review high-income authors low-income authors mission-driven journals

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

García

Rodriguez-Sánchez

Fdez-Valdivia

. Competition between academic journals for scholars’ attention: the ‘Nature effect’ in scholarly communication. Scientometrics 2018; 115: 1413–1432.

Nicholas

Watkinson

Jamali

et al. Peer review: still king in the digital age. Learn Publ 2015; 28(1): 15–21.

Research Information Network. Activities, costs and funding flows in the scholarly communications system in the UK: report commissioned by the Research Information Network (RIN), 2008, https://silo.tips/download/activities-costs-and-funding-flows-in-the-scholarly-communications-system-in-the-3

Snell

Spencer

. Reviewers’ perceptions of the peer review process for a medical education journal. Med Educ 2005; 39(1): 90–97.

Kearney

Baggs

Broome

et al. Experience, time investment, and motivators of nursing journal peer reviewers. J Nurs Scholar 2008; 40(4): 395–400.

Francis

. Peer reviewers of academic journals: who is responsible for our professional literature. Coll Res Libr 2013; 74(6): 536–545.

Lipworth

Kerridge

Carter

et al. Journal peer review in context: a qualitative study of the social and subjective dimensions of manuscript review in biomedical publishing. Soc Sci Med 2011; 72(7): 1056–1063.

Tite

Schroter

. Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey. J Epidemiol Commun Health 2007; 61(1): 9–12.

Ware

Monkman

. Peer review in scholarly journals: perspective of the scholarly community – an international study. London: Publishing Research Consortium, 2008.

10.

Sense about Science. Peer review survey2019, https://senseaboutscience.org/activities/peer-review-survey-2019/

11.

Publons. Global state of peer review, 2018, https://publons.com/community/gspr

12.

Lotriet

. Reviewing the review process: identifying sources of delay. Australas Med J 2012; 5(1): 26–29.

13.

Warne

. Rewarding reviewers – sense or sensibility? A Wiley study explained. Learn Publ 2016; 29(1): 41–50.

14.

Onitilo

Engel

Salzman-Scott

et al. A core-item reviewer evaluation (CoRE) system for manuscript peer review. Account Res 2014; 21: 109–121.

15.

Peters

Ceci

. Peer-review practices of psychological journals: the fate of published articles, submitted again. Behav Brain Sci 1982; 5: 187–255.

16.

Resnik

Gutierrez-Ford

Peddada

. Perceptions of ethical problems with scientific journal peer review: an exploratory study. Sci Eng Ethics 2008; 14: 305–310.

17.

Deci

Ryan

. Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press, 1985.

18.

Kohn

. Punished by rewards. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 1993.

19.

Deci

Koestner

Ryan

. A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychol Bull 1999; 125: 627–668.

20.

Lepper

Greene

Nisbett

. Undermining children’s intrinsic interest with extrinsic rewards: a test of the ‘overjustification’ hypothesis. J Pers Soc Psychol 1973; 28: 129–137.

21.

Cameron

Pierce

. Reinforcement, reward and intrinsic motivation: protests and accusations do not alter the results. Rev Educ Res 1994; 66: 39–52.

22.

Eisenberger

Pierce

Cameron

. Effects of reward on intrinsic motivation: negative, neutral, and positive. Psychol Bull 1999; 125: 677–691.

23.

Chetty

Saez

Sandor

et al. What policies increase prosocial behavior? An experiment with referees at the Journal of Public Economics. J Econ Perspect 2014; 28(3): 169–188.

24.

Collabra: psychology, 2020, https://www.collabra.org/

25.

Copiello

. On the money value of peer review. Scientometrics 2018; 115: 613–620.

26.

Davis

. Rewarding reviewers: money, prestige, or some of both? The Scholarly Kitchen, 2013, https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/02/22/rewarding-reviewers-money-prestige-or-some-of-both/

27.

European Open Access Publishing. Paid peer-reviewing model, 2020, https://europapublishing.org/reviewers.html

28.

Zaharie

Seeber

. Are non-monetary rewards effective in attracting peer reviewers? A natural experiment. Scientometrics 2018; 117: 1587–1609.

29.

Thompson

Aradhyula

Frisvold

et al. Does paying referees expedite reviews? Results of a natural experiment. South Econ J 2010; 76(3): 678–692.

30.

Hamermesh

. Facts and myths about refereeing. J Econ Perspect 1994; 8(1): 153–163.

31.

Canoy

Veld

. How to boost the production of free services: in search of the holy referee grail. Man Econ 2014; 1(1): 79–92.

32.

García

Rodriguez-Sánchez

Fdez-Valdivia

. The author-reviewer game. Scientometrics 2020; 124: 2409–2431.

33.

Jovanovic

Matejevicb

. Relationship between rewards and intrinsic motivation for learning – researches review. Proced Soc Behav Sci 2014; 149: 456–460.

34.

Robinson

. The practice of integrity in Business. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016.

35.

Bauman

. Leadership and the three faces of integrity. Leadersh Quart 2013; 24(3): 414–426.

36.

Buranyi

. Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science? The Guardian, 27 June 2017, https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business-scientific-publishing-bad-for-science

37.

Page B. Elsevier records 2% lifts in revenue and profits. The Bookseller, https://www.thebookseller.com/news/elsevier-records-2-lifts-revenue-and-profits-960016

38.

Ware

Mabe

. The STM report: an overview of scientific and scholarly journal publishing. Oxford: International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers, 2009.

39.

Yen

Chen

. A better buy-one-give-one business model. Nav Res Logist 2021; 68: 1070–1081.

40.

Marquis

Park

. Inside the buy-one give-one model. Stanford Soc Innov Rev 2014; 12(1): 28–33.

41.

Chestnut

Ahn

Anupindi

. Giving it away to increase profits: price discrimination and the effect of free goods. Working Paper, 2017. Ann Arbor, MI: Ross School of Business, University of Michigan.

42.

International Union of Food Science and Technology. Free access to scientific information and research. IUFoST Scientific Information Bulletin (SIB), September 2018, https://www.iufost.org/iufostftp/SIB%20Access%20to%20Literature%20Final.pdf

43.

Cressey

. Concern raised over payment for fast-track peer review. Nature 2015; 2015: 17204.

44.

Gasparyan

Gerasimov

Voronov

et al. Rewarding peer reviewers: maintaining the integrity of science communication. J Korean Med Sci 2015; 30(4): 360–364.

45.

Zhang

Nguyen

et al. Fee-based online services: exploring consumers’ willingness to pay. J Int Technol Inform Manage 2014; 13(1): 1–10.

46.

García

Rodriguez-Sánchez

Fdez-Valdivia

. Can a paid model for peer review be sustainable when the author can decide whether to pay or not? Scientometrics 2022; 127: 1491–1514.

47.

Huisman

Smits

. Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author’s perspective. Scientometrics 2017; 113: 633–650.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.20 MB

The cross-subsidy and buy-one-give-one models of compensated peer review: A comparative study for mission-driven journals

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material