3

SciPoll 637: Crowd Sourcing of Publication Review

What level of compensation would you require to perform a quick critical review of a publication in your area of expertise within 1 month?

Share Page
Post on LinkedIn
Copy URL to Clipboard
Copied!

Results
(730 Answers)

Answer Explanations

  • $0
    user-907425
    Taking a month is totally unacceptable. 
  • $250-499
    user-924219
    These journals are profitable and they have gotten free services for decades from skilled and knowledgable physicians and scientists. That needs to change
  • $250-499
    user-847559
    See above 
  • $100 -249
    user-868575
     hourly rate, no premium 
  • $100 -249
    user-441980
    Because of time constraints 

    Because of many journal’s request 

    Because of APC of journal 
  • user-461442
     I would happily give 1-2 hours without compensation assuming I had the time available . 
  • $100 -249
    user-377267
    I month is a relaxed time frame. Nevertheless, it requires the same working time as within the one week frame. 
  • $250-499
    user-542548
    Compensation based on my hourly fee without an added incentive for a 1-month timeline. 
  • $1,000-1,999
    user-983537
    Assuming the amount of work is the same as in questions 1 and 2 the compensation would also be the same.  
  • $250-499
    user-57242
    Flexibility in time scheduling 
  • $100 -249
    user-559827
    I consider that this amount of money could be appropriate for this period of time for the review.
  • $250-499
    user-786434
    It is a fair fee for an eventual task
  • $100 -249
    user-653585
    This is to compensate for my time as I would have left other money making opportunities to review the paper 
  • $1-99
    user-355649
    Appropriate
  • $100 -249
    user-113444
    If the review is not required immediately, we are not forced to abandon other activities or work extra-hours. Thus the fee could be reduced.
  • $100 -249
    user-33117
    This will not be much different from a week's timeline.
  • $100 -249
    user-441179
    Assuming that a critical review requires me to read the publication in detail, it can not be that "quick". Assuming one takes about two hours to read and critically dissect the data and conclusions, a 75-100 dollars/hour seems reasonable to me given the lower level of urgency of the request. This is substantially variable when considering the amount of data in the publication. 
  • $100 -249
    user-372960
    Easier to organize, not very demanding.
  • $100 -249
    user-38414
    Giving more time to review a paper does not reduce the amount of work needed. 
  • $100 -249
    user-51945
    Same work 
  • $0
    user-864332
    This is a common practice already in my field, and I do it without compensation. I would, of course, prefer compensation but this service is expected in my field.
  • $100 -249
    user-287804
    same as above
  • $100 -249
    user-138963
    no less than 100 euros. Expertise in crucial for good referee's task
  • $100 -249
    user-412773
    Same applies
  • $1-99
    user-348125
    The compensation range of $1-$99 is suitable for a one-month peer review considering the extended timeframe and level of commitment required. While on the lower end of the scale, this compensation still recognizes the value of the reviewer's time and contribution to the peer review process. 
  • $1-99
    user-174346
    This is what I am paid now.
  • $100 -249
    user-652534
    less than 100 $ for 2 hours of work means that the quality is low
  • $250-499
    user-770938
     I believe this is a suitable level of compensation which publishing companies should be more than able to afford. 
  • $100 -249
    user-475346
    My typical rate for pharmaceutical consulting is $400-500/hr, but I would probably consider a "discount" since it's peer review rather than consulting (and the medical journals don't have pockets as deep as the pharmaceutical companies), and 1 month is plenty of time to complete this (most journals request 2-3 week response time in my experience)
  • $100 -249
    user-828172
    Typical annual consultant/expert's salary divided by number of hours worked over a year to earn the salary
  • $1-99
    user-299419
    In one month I understand that adjustments would be easier and 50-75 would be fair.
  • user-433063
    I think that $50/hour is a good payment considering the time.
  • $250-499
    user-210113
    compensation of time spent
  • $1-99
    user-275661
    Based on my regular monthly salary, one-two hours work would be at the top of this range. One month would be too long, as I could be tempted to delay reviewing. It should be achievable within a week.
  • $500-999
    user-730942
    Depending on the number of pages, complexity of the work and detail of the results presented. I would have to deeply analyse it and compare it the data available in literature.
  • $0
    user-598503
    Normal time.
  • $250-499
    user-876767
    250 usd would be appropriate 
  • $250-499
    user-494980
    Writing a good review suggesting step by step what can be improved and checking each of the reference needs time to be prepared. Even writing takes 1-2 hours preparing review takes much more time depending ona topic and on the kind of the article (review, original, short communication etc.). Even you have a week time writing a review takes you the same amount of time. I believe it is better to do it at once from the beginning to the end so the amount of time for the review is important but still you need to be paid well for your professional work.
  • $100 -249
    user-819310
    As it might requre up to a full days load but with working another assignments in 30 days and not as such stressful to deliver in some of the previous experiences I have had, getting a compensation of $100-249 is fair considering 8 working hours with a fair daily rate of consulatncy service payment for professionals and also underatnding this is a professional ethics to criticize and make contribution for the science. Furthermore, considering the least payment which is $100, the range I selcted is fair. 
  • $2,000+
    user-958657
    penalty for delays imposed - why a month? 
  • $1-99
    user-914553
    More reasonable, most Journals give 3 weeks to perform a review
  • $250-499
    user-386308
    A month to review a work is a much calmer task.
  • $100 -249
    user-938667
    as above
  • $0
    user-126332
    This is a pretty typical turnaround for a journal, and I do many such free reviews. We need to support non-profit journals sponsored by scientific societies, and they will likely continue to need free reviews to stay viable. 
  • $500-999
    user-446741
    A thorough review is 2-3 hours work. A reasonable hourly rate for my expertise is $250, even at 1-2 hours that is $500. Reviews in this timeframe typically are not compensated, but given the commercial nature of this proposal, going rate is appropriate.
  • $0
    user-416823
    This is what I usually do
  • $500-999
    user-549473
    Whatever the time an expert
    Must have a compensation for assessing a paper and in fine allowing the publisher to earn a lot of money
  • $100 -249
    user-242774
    With this 1 month timeframe + in an area of my expertise, the $100.00 would be very reasonable.
  • $100 -249
    user-474509
    See previous answer
  • $1-99
    user-86763
    99 usd for my work + 0 usd for disturbing my plans
  • $0
    user-780719
    Same as #2.
  • $100 -249
    user-480270
    The longer the evaluation time, the less pressure it applies. And there's plenty of time to do it in peace.
  • $250-499
    user-692996
    For more higher level
  • $1-99
    user-109201
    Because when you review a manuscript, you have to hold your own pending tasks. Moreover, open access or paid journals charge from author but don't pay potencial reviewers. Payment to reviewers would enhance quality of reviewing.
  • $1,000-1,999
    user-819356
    This represents the minimum fee for reviewing a research paper within one month. 
  • $1-99
    user-330420
    Corrected Text:
    Reviewing a manuscript comprehensively can take approximately 3 to 4 hours, requiring a high level of academic expertise.
  • $100 -249
    user-740731
    The work is  quite a skilled job
  • $250-499
    user-36877
    One month is too much
  • $1-99
    user-169864
    A fair retribution for a complex task.
  • $1-99
    user-492635
    Same as above.
  • $500-999
    user-988041
    Same as above.
  • $100 -249
    user-105956
    I work as a consultant and do not have a salary. So, a minimal level of compensation is nice. 
  • $250-499
    user-774962
    The review time, assuming that you are referring to the same article, would be the same regardless of the time allotted. 
  • $500-999
    user-579540
    What is important for me is the total amount of time and energy I spend to complete a task. So, whether it is required within a day or a week or a month will not change that. However, having flexibility will increase my willingness to do the work. 
  • $1-99
    user-697539
     The reason is same as above except that more time is now available for concentrating on the subject matter and my schedule can be adjusted for the review 
  • $0
    user-935064
    There would be ample time to perform the review at my leisure.
  • $500-999
    user-904430
    This regards a long time involvement with in deep study
  • $100 -249
    user-337025
    You are right, experts need at least a symbolic support for their time and effort, support which will bust their involvement as reviewers, especially in a short time frame.
    Of course the complexity of the paper/work can require variable (lower or higher) such expected support.
    Success and all the best!
  • $100 -249
    user-86609
    I would require I would require at least $100 per hour for compensation (2 hours = $200).
  • $500-999
    user-223303
    See above
  • $1-99
    user-496176 
    I prefer this amount because it is enough for me to review the article within 1 month.

  • $100 -249
    user-126416
    Spending 1 month  for reviewing and sharing critical comments is worthy of the selected reimbursement amount 
  • $1-99
    user-888372
    I have served as a reviewer for years but didn't take any compensation. 
  • $100 -249
    user-61732
    Professional job and as such should be rewarded
  • $1-99
    user-660265
    I think,  month review should not be much payable, too encourage the scientist to make their revisions quicker, to make the publication's process easier, and it suppose to be in my opinion max $50. 
  • user-684482
    Reviews will almost always take more than 1-2 hours of work.  A month isn't any more of an inconvenience than a week.
  • $250-499
    user-802001
    see above.
  • $250-499
    user-446692
    Just based on the hourly rate.
  • $500-999
    Sonne72
    Same. 
  • $250-499
    user-267969
    All the comments I've made above still apply but the longer timeline makes it much easier to conduct, thus the low end of the range $250-499 seems appropriate. Of course we have all done this for free for a long time!
  • $100 -249
    user-841110
    How long I have doesn't really matter to me. It is the time spent that matters.
  • $2,000+
    user-274801
    The level of compensation would depend on the size (number of words) of the article, as it includes the time to read and analyze the article and the time to write the review report (a preset grading criteria, and little required writing, i.e. 1 to 2 hours of work), thus approximately 12 hours of work and more, up to 35 working hours). Assume that the article (such a review or report) is longer (16 pages and more, up to 40 pages). 
  • $100 -249
    user-489806
    One month is almost too much time, and it should be avoided. I have never taken more than 10 days for my reviews. Journals have a timeline, and authors are anxious to know whether they are accepted, or if they should move on to another journal. Yes, extra time allows for deeper analysis, but there is no such thing as a perfect journal article.
  • $1-99
    user-881641
    A month is long enough to carry out the review at a pace not too constrained as far as timing is concerned.
  • $2,000+
    user-982423
    Estimation only
  • $1-99
    user-570468
    It would be easier to incorporate into my agenda. 
  • $1-99
    user-125484
    Peer review is a process that evaluates the validity, quality, and originality of articles, with the ultimate goal of maintaining the integrity of science by filtering out invalid or poor quality articles, all that need less effort.
  • $250-499
    user-208051
    1-2 hours of work: my rate is $250
  • $100 -249
    user-480744
    Assuming the review would take 1-2 hours and and the review could be done over many weekends, then it is only fair to ask for the same hourly rate as my own salary as anything could occur within a month in research.
  • $0
    user-589243
    Medicine is already prostituted enough to charge fees for reviewing clinical work.  OK?
  • $250-499
    user-86448
    see above
  • $250-499
    user-802518
    Same answer as above
  • $100 -249
    user-753791
    The ease of carrying out the peer review in such circumstances is less pressurizing.
  • $100 -249
    user-371021
    100 USD
  • $100 -249
    user-215705
    Academic journals rake in large sums of profit every year with open access fees typically in excess of $2,000 - $3,000 USD per article. Many popular journals publish hundreds or thousands of articles annually, such as MDPI which is a publisher that owns dozens of academic journals. The Scholarly Kitchen website reported that in 2020, MDPI made between $2 million and $12 million USD in profit from article processing charges alone, this likely includes the fact that they offer a small APC waiver to peer reviewers ranging from $50 to $200 USD (however, it is an APC waiver and not cash). Considering that reviewers are typically not paid, it seems a publisher such as this one could stand to offer $200-300 hundred dollars to each reviewer (assuming 2 per article) and still be profitable. I'm sure this number would vary across journals depending on staffing levels. MDPI has a very sizeable staff size, whereas some journals are almost completely volunteer (i.e. editor-in-chief, associate editors, reviewers are all volunteer and then a few hired staff handle website, publishing, etc.).  If I were to receive around $150 - $250 per review with about 2hours of work, I would be more inclined to accept peer review assignments, regardless of the length of time I have to complete it (i.e. 1 month, 1 week, 1 day). However, I would simply decline a 1-day window in many instances due to time, and a higher premium would likely entice more people to accept it.
  • $100 -249
    user-923404
    This would require setting aside fewer hours a day or week to complete the suggested 1-2 hours of work within a month, hence the lower rate. 
  • $100 -249
    user-567411
    Usually, this amount is sufficient to cover the process and encourage the reviewer.
  • $0
    user-601789
    In Academia, peer review is a community service.
  • $2,000+
    user-382369
    By doing a similar argumentation as above:
     The current average salary in my country (Argentina) as full professor/ principal investigator is 2000 USD per month. Therefore, if we consider similar compensations for work, a compensation of a revision that would take a month would be 2000 USD. On the other hand, other countries (such as USA) pay an average of 7000 USD per month. Therefore a fair compensation for a revision that would take one month would be 7000USD per week for an american senior investigator.
    However, the work burden is similar for all investigators whichever their country is. For this, I consider that an average of 2000 to 7000 USD would do. 
  • $100 -249
    user-576481
    Same as above 
  • $100 -249
    user-637348
    More time less stress on brain
  • $100 -249
    user-397052
    If requests for reviews were solicited like most journals do now (use their expertise database) and not use the same reviewer more than once in a defined period of time,  I think some type of compensation is reasonable.  However, I could see how this could be abused so guardrails must be put in place.  
  • $250-499
    user-510547
     This is a fair rate for the technical review in my field of expertise 
  • $100 -249
    user-827851
    Three hours of work
  • $500-999
    user-898830
    Since I get more time to review.
  • $1,000-1,999
    user-966722
    My monthly salary is 1800EUROS-1933.73962 USD.
  • $100 -249
    user-78154
    Time
  • $1-99
    user-920951
    As above 
  • $0
    user-550886
    idem
  • $250-499
    user-102269
    In Mexico, the per hour-fee as an expert in my field (Economics) for the industry is around USD 150.  Two hours of work is 300 USD.
  • $250-499
    user-414626
     Same as for the 1-day response. 
  • $100 -249
    user-363225
    All peer reviews requires a thorough and in-depth review no matter the timing required for the publication process
  • $500-999
    user-969485
    A month suggests that windows of time may become available with which one could chip away at a review without delaying/sacrificing other work or opportunities.
  • $250-499
    user-142393
    I’m Not an experienced reviewer but I am expert in my area. This would still take me 4-5 hours or work or more 
  • $100 -249
    user-673903
    Compensation is good but it is somewhat of an obligation for scientists to perform as reviewers in the scientific community.
  • $100 -249
    user-905834
    One month is a very flexible time to review tough and difficult manuscripts thoroughly. This is quite manageable, so I do two to three review months. So, I proceed with a lesser amount. However, the quality of this review will definitely be better than that of one day review.
  • $100 -249
    user-608413
    Equakl that a period of one week, the review can be made without impact in personal agenda, but requieres additional tiem on this purpose
  • $0
    user-494570
    Science is all about contribution. Therefore, I encourage everyone to think about quality and contribution, not the money.
  • $500-999
    user-642125
    Given a month to do a high-quality review, it would be very unlikely to need to reschedule other events, and I would be willing to accept a lower compensation than for 1 day turn around, but not less than for a 1 week turnaround since my time is valuable and it still takes several hours to do a proper review. 
  • $100 -249
    user-520983
    Nothing less than $200.
  • $100 -249
    user-754769
    A one-month grace period gives some leeway for peer review, but it still requires a significant commitment of effort.
  • $500-999
    user-657550
    Compensation will depend on the paper's difficulty level.
  • $2,000+
    user-153764
    The higher rate assumes a more complex task.
  • $0
    user-779771
    With no time constraints, compensation isn't really an issue.
  • $250-499
    user-775305
    My normal rate for consulting.
  • $0
    user-532803
    I believe it is my duty to provide peer review and expected as part of my paid job as an academic. 
  • $0
    user-731405
    it for free, but the possibility of some small earnings would probably increase my motivation and reduce the risk of me refusing to do it.
  • $0
    user-60141
    wouldnt entertain this time line as an author that would be unacceptable
  • $2,000+
    user-821219
    The median of this pay range option. Assuming this is not the usual full review of original or systematic review articles that could take upto 4-5 hours of accumulated work, and reviews in writing around 500 word counts. 
  • $1,000-1,999
    user-669670
    For a quick critical review of a publication in my area of expertise within one month, I would consider compensation in the range of $1000-$1999 to be reasonable. Here's the rationale behind this:

    1. Extended Timeframe: A one-month timeframe allows for a more thorough and comprehensive review compared to shorter deadlines. It provides ample time to carefully examine the publication, conduct additional research if necessary, and formulate detailed feedback.
    2. Expertise and Quality: As an expert in the field, my expertise and knowledge contribute significantly to the quality and depth of the review. Compensation at this level reflects the value of the time, effort, and expertise required to deliver a comprehensive evaluation of the publication.
    3. Motivation and Commitment: Compensation serves as a motivator and demonstrates a commitment to the review process. Paid reviews are often more thorough and reliable due to the dedication they represent.
    4. Blind Review and Preset Criteria: The blinding of identity and use of preset grading criteria streamline the review process, allowing the focus to remain on the critical assessment of the content rather than administrative tasks.
    5. Additional Responsibilities: Within the one-month timeframe, there may be additional responsibilities such as responding to author queries, participating in reviewer discussions, or revisiting the review for revisions, all of which contribute to the overall workload and justify the compensation level.

    In summary, a compensation range of $1000-$1999 aligns with the extended timeframe, expertise required, and additional responsibilities associated with performing a thorough and thoughtful review within one month. It reflects the value of the reviewer's contributions and ensures a diligent and professional approach to the peer review process.
  • $1,000-1,999
    user-593019
    That wouldn't make a huge difference. 
  • $1-99
    user-661948
    It applies the same reasons as in the 1st question. 
  • $100 -249
    user-460248
    I probably would not go lower than $100, unless the topic interests me a lot or I like the journal.
  • $250-499
    user-132334
    As above
  • $100 -249
    user-349303
    This would increase the feeling of responsibility from the reviewer to deliver in time
  • $0
    user-573537
    I have difficulties in understanding how a 1 month time lapse could be fitted under the concept of a "quick critical review" 
  • $100 -249
    user-108505
    A normal review would be 4 weeks, so this is completely okay
  • $250-499
    sab2x
    Hourly consulting rate, assuming 2 hours of work. 
  • $100 -249
    user-901717
    This is because there is more time for review.
  • $100 -249
    user-861466
    not much different from 1 week
  • $1-99
    user-222888
    Enough time to do a review and so compensation can be less
  • $1-99
    user-676638
    Since one month is quite sufficient to allow liberty to a reviewer to take the review assignment at his convinient time, a little bit lower compensation (anything above $75) may be okay. Here the compensation can purely be for the review, and not for handling a tight timeline. 

    In all above answers, I have assumed that there will be separate remuneration for reviwing the same manuscript after revision. 
  • $100 -249
    user-404672
    See above
  • $100 -249
    user-248213
    One month is a time lapse with a low pressure level. 
  • $1-99
    user-546254
    Hourly compensation, less time pressure.
  • $1-99
    user-956623
    When estimating the compensation for fulfilling an assignment on short notice, it is important to take into account not only the time that is required to fulfill the assignment but that there will be the need to cancel/postpone other important business or work outside normal working hours. 1 month's notice makes it unlikely that this will be a necessity   
  • $100 -249
    user-138300
    Normal fee
  • $100 -249
    user-946844
    My university bills my time as $400 an hour but I could do this in small tranches which don't interfere with my other work.
  • $100 -249
    user-255626
    Hi,
    Since I am new to Scipinion, I would charge 100$. But this can change later.
  • $1-99
    user-540634
    One month should be the standard time, enough for proper review of a manuscript involving several readings. Still it should be paid to improve the present system. I consider compensation between $1 and $9 adequate, larger quantities may lead to researches considering it an alternative salary, as one can be reviewer for many journals 
  • $1-99
    user-266855
     The same amount of work is still required. But there is time to fit it in with my current work. 
  • $0
    user-987379
    One month is a bit of an embarrassment, to be honest. If I postponed it that much, I wouldn't expect any compensation.
  • $250-499
    user-437100
    Allow me to do other things in the week and still review the publication 
  • $1-99
    user-477977
    Again, a reward can elevate the quality of the review but I don't believe that more than 100 $ would be fair.
  • $1-99
    user-315417
    I do peer review without compensation at the moment. However I don't think it is unreasonable for reviewers to get a share of the profits that large publishers are making. I would be inclined to review more articles if I was getting paid to do it.
  • $500-999
    user-200863
    It depends and may vary from nothing to $1,000+ for review depending on the nature and purpose of the review. For example, nothing to very little (<$500) if the review is for a paper that will immediately help the general public for a crisis and it is for a journal that doesn't charge for the publication. I may ask for what I charge for my consulting if the manuscript is for something that will generate revenue for a business and/or for a journal that charges for publications. 
  • $100 -249
    user-744452
    As above
  • $250-499
    user-836594
    It also has to be done in my spare time and for it I have to pay income tax, health contribution and likely go into another taxation bracket
  • $1-99
    user-242221
    It's not a matter of how long it takes to conduct a review, as this is strongly influenced by the reviewer's level of expertise in the subject matter of the study under review. However, it is crucial that a researcher's time is compensated, even symbolically, but it must be valued. Reviewers should be selected based on strict eligibility criteria to prevent anyone from taking advantage of the remuneration without being suitable for the reviewer role.
  • $250-499
    user-70642
    Reviewing is a job that requires knowledge and time.
  • $100 -249
    user-474161
     In my opinion, around $ 100 should be enough  with this time frame
  • $0
    user-673264
    I do this regularly for no fee.
  • $100 -249
    user-151126
    100
  • $100 -249
    user-41956
     See answer to Q1
  • $250-499
    user-156962
    As 1 and 2 above. The costs are the same whether I do the review in 1 day or 1 month. Except that my schedule would probably not allow for the first option. 
  • $500-999
    user-86421
    The expertise of the reviewer must be reconpensaated
  • $250-499
    user-43697
    In reality there is no difference between a return time of one week and one month. There are 1-3 hours of work involved which would be billed at my standard hourly rate
  • $250-499
    user-639182
    No change, that is the value of the review
  • $250-499
    user-561710
    the ranges are too wide
  • $100 -249
    user-434792
    It is fair enough to criticize the manuscript
  • $1-99
    user-101632
    Thats a bit less of what i make in 1 or 2 hours but within a month would probably do it during dead times (i.e. like waiting for an appointment or using public transport)
  • $100 -249
    user-798488
    I used weekeneds.
  • $250-499
    user-852959
    See above. Personally, I see now reason to give someone a month to respond if the amount of actual work required is only 1-2 hours. In fact, such a lengthy period is likely to result in no response as, in my experience, people generally do the work at the last minute and so are likely to forget to do it by the end of a month....
  • $250-499
    user-508906
    Basic consideration: Manuscript with mid-level complexity and size (manuscript ~40 page 1.5 line distance including all manuscript  sections without supplements, approx. 7 figures with up to 6 independent subitems) . Sufficient reviewer expertise to get instantly into the topic.

    Understanding the basic story (abstract, figures) 0.5h
    reading the entire manuscript 2h
    cross-search in the literature 1h
    evaluation, writing evaluation resport (approx. 2 pages, 1 line distance) 1h 
    submission into an electronix system 0.5h
    In total for basi evaluation 5h, considering a rate of 100$/h; total basic costs 500$

    This a realistic time schedule for an qualified review that helps the authors to improve their manuscript.  
    No extra charge for accelerated evaluation.
  • $100 -249
    user-813921
    same as above
  • $100 -249
    user-917733
    It can be dilueted further
  • $250-499
    user-564243
    that's how much an hour to 2 hours of expert work is evaluated for such a delay
  • $100 -249
    user-28974
    it usually takes 4-5 hours, but i need to arrange them like off-duty hours
  • $100 -249
    user-270335
    The compensation should be according to the revision job, which include not just a quick read but the chance of a deep check of references used, numbers and results consistency.
  • $100 -249
    user-168151
    A bit longer and will be a disadvantage for the journal.
  • $1-99
    user-190861
    As above
  • $2,000+
    user-417588
    Same
  • $500-999
    user-345911
    It depends about the complexity of the paper: If we are talking about the same work planed for a day or for a month, the amount is quite lower of an immediately review. But obviously if the proposal is a new complex investigation, 500$ is a reasonable minimum amount 
  • $250-499
    user-972252
    1 month is a comfortable duration for a review.However, it has to be attractive to increase the motivation 
  • $0
    user-891259
    If I have an opportunity to choose my own pace and the topic is interesting, I take the review for free.
  • $1-99
    user-239098
    Should be able to fit into my work time, but also longer time scales often mean I spend longer working on it, so I prefer shorter turn arounds if I know when they are happening and can plan other deadlines in advance.
  • $1-99
    user-590282
    Takes almost 8 hours to critically review a manuscript. 
  • $500-999
    user-634909
    The answer is based on an estimated hourly rate for a mid to senior PhD-level scientist in industry or academic, and the necessity to get behind on other work in order to prioritize the manuscript review and complete quickly, i.e., other work responsibilities/assignments would be delayed.  If there is a month to review, it is likely that the review would be higher quality and more time would be spent on it, in comparison to a day, or a week. With a month, a reviewer could schedule pockets of time to review, look up references, and re-read sections as necessary.
  • $100 -249
    user-304796
    Same thing
  • $100 -249
    user-359518
    Because of the  time dame given to complete the he review 
  • $250-499
    user-222153
    Same rational throughout. 
  • $100 -249
    user-801912
    Under a certain amount, the compensation saturate
  • $100 -249
    user-136424
    This is based on my current hourly rate of $100/hour
  • $0
    user-891148
    This should be the right time for all the submitted articles. Payment could affect the quality of the review, so a low compensation or no compensation should be applied.
  • $250-499
    user-469485
    In case if reviewer is taking one month in the process, it may provide valuable suggestions on one side, but, on other side, authors have to wait for long. This makes reviewing process lengthy and sometimes authors may receive negative results after waiting a long time and suffer some academic losses. 
  • $100 -249
    user-997202
    It gives a time to review and it why I reduced the amount to be paid. 
  • $100 -249
    user-15825
    I give this value as compensative
  • $0
    user-917846
    There is no need for compensation as there is the time necessary to carry out the review
  • $1-99
    user-839058
    I believe that $50-99 is a fair valorisation of the experience acquired in a sector made available to revise a manuscript within a period of one month, in which the management of the revision can take place with peace of mind
  • $1,000-1,999
    user-245397
    Most of the time is sent for a critical reading review and critically analyzing the manuscript data. Each manuscript is different and the use of Engish language is also important. The actual price is 150-200 euro per hr.
  • $0
    user-921990
    See my response above.
  • $100 -249
    user-801044
    Performing peer review within a month would be plannable.
  • $500-999
    user-189310
    1-2 h of my work for $500 with normal priority is what I would bill privately. This is the ordinary rate.
  • $1-99
    user-251614
    This accounts for my time, but as I would be able to perform the review at my discretion over the month, it would necessitate less reorganization of my ongoing experiments.
  • $1,000-1,999
    user-356107
    Manuscript review is a highly specialized task that requires extensive knowledge in specific areas. In some cases, the review requires several days or several time intervals. The idea of ​​the manuscript must be understood in order to make suggestions or proposals appropriate to the nature of the work.
  • $500-999
    user-834001
     This would be about 3 to 4 hours of work for a detailed and comprehensive work.  No difference compared to one week. 
  • $100 -249
    user-902950
     Something along the lines of $30-40 per hour of work is acceptable, though the fee may increase if the specialty subject is particularly niche or challenging 
Previous Result Next Result

Debate
(0 Comments)

Please log in to comment.