Crowd Sourcing of Publication Review

Authors should not get effected by the reviewer payments 

The issue here is that you should not only be paid for the time it takes to perform the task, but also for the urgency required. The less time one has, the more one must prioritize the task required, and this must be paid for.

How much would Scipinion pay me   Does anybody know. 

I feel being onto the mean value and I am happy with that!

To speed up reviews, or conduct more than I have allocated, requires me to work overtime away from my family and I feel this should be compensated. The suggestion that a review takes 1-2 hours is nonsense or those are just quick over view of the paper and are not what should be considered a peer-reviewed review. I spend much more time on a review I often read the latest literature on the specific topic to ensure I am up to date when reviewing the paper before I start. Then I evaluate the methods and statistical analysis analytically and the interpretation of the findings in the review. This is to ensure the reader's time is not wasted on a hastily written and reviewed paper. I think less is more. We should not be aiming for hundreds of publications but tens of good quality high-impact publications that come from wide collaborations. 

I believe, for society journals not asking any APC, we should continue to offer free review. However for commercial publihsers, there is no point in offering ourselves as free labourers. The money we get from a commercial publisher can always be used for supporting our lab or Ph.D. students. 

Please keep in mind that reviews of manuscripts submitted to first rate pharmacology/toxicology journals like Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology or Toxicological Sciences have always been and continue to be volunteer efforts.  I assume the commenters to this post all have substantial (perhaps 100 or more) publications to their credit and these authors have never paid for journal submissions and editorial/peer reviews.  Why would a journal reviewer charge for reviews of your paper since no doubt others have reviewed your work and that of others as professional courtesy?  While a journal reviewer must disclose conflict of interest the manuscript authors must be certain there are no financial barriers or conflicts as would be the case if journals/editors charged for submissions.  It seems possible - even probable - that low rank low impact score publications may take $$ just to publish vanity articles but an established career scientist employed by a reputable organization can easily see through those problematic sources. 

Why you want to normalize the Science on the basis of money?

I second the previous comment (keeping in mind other specialists' -which plumbers and electricians certainly are- wages), but from the opposite angle. You deserve a decent pay, but demanding 2k for a job that really does not take tremendous effort or time is riddiculous and priviledged.

A modest gratification for a job we're doing as community servise is a good idea, mostly because it allows those in a less fortunate financial situation to contribute, and in result diversifies the voices. A bonus for a quick turn around is a really nice idea. But really, chill your egos folks.

CROs can easily charge >$1500 per hour for consultancy in life sciences to pharma. My Uni typically charges $250 per hour. 
Why should we be reviewing research papers for these journals when we see no compensation? 
This should stop. 

Please keep in mind the hourly rate for which a plumber or electrician will bill you for a repair in your house.

Individuals with content-specific expertise who have a PhD are selling themselves short if they are essentially willing to work for $50 per hour or less.