2
Which potential modifications to the journal peer review system do you believe would be most beneficial?
Results
(209 Answers)
Answer Explanations
- Open peer review (reviewer identities known) Paid peer reviewuser-118567It is an unfair system where we have to find the money for the research, for publication, etc - but we are reviewing for free.
- Paid peer review Other [please specify]user-287804Perhaps the Journals should employ experts in various fields, who can unambiguously and anonymously screen the manuscripts. This could be done in addition to one academic or industry expert, instead of two or three. This might reduce the number of academic peer-reviewer needed.
Also, paid Journal employee should do a language screen and assure that the writing is clear and understandable before asking academics to review. - Paid peer review Automated screening toolsuser-74194Editors need to be able to quickly screen papers for misinformation. Paying reviewer would likely increase the motivation to accept review invitations.
- Ongoing post-publication peer review Paid peer reviewuser-738101It’s time for the model to change and for reviewers to be paid for their time.
- Paid peer reviewuser-193986Paid peer review means recognizing peer review as a significant commitment and bounding the reviewer to a contract with formal responsibilities. It can be a symbolic payment, it is not really a matter of money per se.
- Ongoing post-publication peer review Open peer review (reviewer identities known)user-194025The current system is certainly not working!
- Paid peer review Automated screening tools Structured review formatsuser-646537I think paid peer review would make a big difference. I also think adding structure to peer review would make it easier to make sure reviews are complete and comprehensive.
- Open peer review (reviewer identities known) Paid peer reviewuser-637800Acknowledgement is a morale booster!
Paid peer review would motivate scientists to review as many papers and as quickly as possible. - Paid peer reviewuser-579540This will be fair and incentivize the researhers to do the work. While we do all the work, publishers make money.
- Automated screening tools Other [please specify]user-530506AI
- Paid peer review Automated screening toolsuser-606148paid peer review places may impose unethical expectations on reviewers, but given increased pressures to seek funding for other research-related activities, it may be necessary to pay reviewers simply to compete for scarce time. Automated screening tools will be in a continuous contest of "arms vs armor" in assuring quality reviews. Right now, journals are on the losing side of that contest.
- Paid peer review Automated screening tools Structured review formats Other [please specify]user-426175Post-publication review has no sense. There are some criteria to evaluate a review (formally, e.g. length, but competent suggestions are also required) Multicriteria evaluation is essential. Non-novelty is not a reason for rejection. Such questions in a review form should be eliminated as will it create large impact?, or alike.
American authors should not be reviewed by American reviewers and Chinese ones by Chinese authors, etc. Paper mills and citation boosting should be prohibited. For example, if quantum chemists cite each other without adding significant contribution to the field, just having a larger computer and calculating the same - it is definitely a paper mill, even if Nobel price laureates do the same.
All scientific journal should forbid more affiliations than two, independently form countries, races, etc.
The authorship should be shared in all scientific publications in percentages. If the authors do not give such contribution share, their contribution should be decided equally. False co-authorship should be filtered out by editors, every coauthor is responsible for the entire manuscript. If no correct answer arrived in a certain period, the publication should be denied or the corresponding author should be removed form the authors' list.
Etc. - Paid peer reviewuser-969930Given the new world order regarding financial incentives and the implications in practice.
- Paid peer reviewuser-683654Paid peer review will make reviewers to be more interested in the review work particularly for old reviewers.
- Paid peer review Structured review formatsuser-524666not sure how a payment system might work because it would draw a lot of new reviewers of unknown quality into the calculus
- Open peer review (reviewer identities known) Paid peer reviewuser-817094The main change should focus on compensating reviewers for their services. Additionally, disclosing the identity of reviewers not only brings transparency to the process but also allows for an assessment of the quality of their reviews.
- Paid peer reviewuser-740158If reviewers were remunerated or acknowledged publicly for their contributions through awards, grant etc. This might make them feel appreciated and incentive for their work. Especially knowing that publication and journals make money and authors are rewarded with awards if they publish impactful work
- Paid peer reviewuser-320728this help the reviewers to do their work better
- Other [please specify]user-75113Education of reviewers to understand the ethical requirements of appropriate peer review.
- Paid peer review Structured review formats Other [please specify]user-214851Reasonable deadlines and more administrative support for reviewers.
- Ongoing post-publication peer review Open peer review (reviewer identities known) Paid peer reviewuser-887652Ongoing post-publication review effectively exists already; formalizing it might not be necessary. Anonymous peer review is rarely really anonymous. Do away with the pretense and make the real structure of science apparent. Good peer review takes time. Someone is already paying for it, just not necessarily those who benefit from it.
- Paid peer review Structured review formats Other [please specify]user-834781Paid review has obvious challenges also. However since journals are increasingly charging authors, they should be paying the reviewers!
- Paid peer review Structured review formatsuser-214133Paid peer reviewing motivated the inclusion of qualified experts.
Standardization reduces human error during the review process. - Paid peer reviewuser-563401Peer Review takes a good amount of time and effort.
Many reviewers accept the review invitation but either don't complete the review, delay it, or provide very superficial comments.
In either case, it results in a delay in processing the manuscript.
hence it is better to offer an incentive, like vouchers That may help them pay the APC. - Other [please specify]user-781308All peer review systems mentioned are potentially good; however, it is often not easy to find voluntary peer reviewers with the requisite expertise. Many voluntary reviewers, even after accepting to review, take more time to respond, which leads to delays in making a final decision on the article's publication worthiness. The automated screening tools and structured review formats may stifle the scope of the review.
I suggest the Journal invite expressions of interest from the reviewers and select only those who possess the requisite expertise related to the topic. Some mechanisms of recognition or payment may ensure that the reviewers give due priority to the task. - Ongoing post-publication peer review Paid peer review Automated screening toolsuser-286232These are self explantory. Retired reviewers have time and experience and prefer desk work for obvious reasons.
- Ongoing post-publication peer review Open peer review (reviewer identities known) Paid peer reviewuser-774853Science develops and the purpose of peer review is to assist in that, not to reject and allow publications of those who publish the same in different styles and articles, as many as a few thousand a year, whose work then, by proxy, is assumed to be accurate.
An ongoing scrutiny would also allow work to be connected and improved as understanding of the science improves. - Ongoing post-publication peer review Automated screening toolsuser-771708if triage could be shown to be reliably automated and/or more strictly carried out by editors, reviewer overload would be reduced
- Open peer review (reviewer identities known) Paid peer review Structured review formatsuser-41956I believe open review will improve the review submitted. Currently, there are too many short and superficial reviews being submitted.
Paid peer reviews may improve the quality of the review, but are as likely to lead to a new vocation, the professional reviewer.
Structured review formats, particularly those tailored to a specific journal or topic, have significant potential for enhancing the system. I specifically see it improving reviewer efficiency and providing editors with relevant information in a standardized format. - Paid peer reviewuser-70793The peer review process sometimes takes long. One factor causing the slow process is unmotivated reviewers. If the reviewers are entitled to some stipend, the review process will be quickened.
- user-920460Implementing a paid peer review system could help address reviewer fatigue and delays by providing tangible incentives for experts to participate. Compensation might encourage more researchers, especially early-career scientists, to engage in the review process, leading to a broader and more diverse reviewer pool. However, this approach would require careful implementation to maintain review quality and avoid conflicts of interest. Journals could adopt a hybrid model, offering payment for rapid or high-quality reviews while keeping voluntary contributions for those who prefer traditional academic service.
- Paid peer reviewuser-230313Open access has generated significant profits now harm to spread this to the reviewers. Also the reviewers should be public
- Ongoing post-publication peer review Open peer review (reviewer identities known) Paid peer review Other [please specify]user-655754I think there are two solutions (not mutually exclusive) that would have a huge impact in securing reviewers for submissions.
1) pay reviewers. I get paid to review textbooks--an easier task (when it's just a chapter) that requires less expertise--but never for a journal article. When I'm asked to do both at the same time, I choose the paid opportunity.
2) Universities need to change their hiring, promotion, and tenure policies to give peer review MUCH higher value. Of course publishing original research as a lead/supervising author is a far bigger undertaking, but providing a detailed and thorough review also requires a level of expertise that is impressive and takes a good amount of time to be done well. Several such reviews should be considered equivalent to "middle authorship" on a multi-authored article. But at most places it's barely acknowledged if one does these reviews at all.
a) Assuming such a paradigm shift in hiring and P&T is possible, it could be accomplished the simple way with publons profiles that keep track of how many reviews someone has done and at which journals.
b) OR it could be done a more complex way, which would involve having the reviews published along with articles, and with names attached. Or perhaps some kind of endorsement or rating process provided by the editor for every review submitted.
But basically this is all on the universities to make a conscious decision to include and provide enough weight to this important aspect of scholarship. - Paid peer review Other [please specify]user-956937Categorization by themes (medicine, engineering, other etc)
- Paid peer review Automated screening toolsuser-186224Only good peer reviews will be paid, which will be automatically screened at the first place, and then can be assessed by journal editors
- Paid peer review Structured review formatsuser-104740Paid review would help, and allow for a lot more people to do the reviewing, which would lessen the wait.
- Open peer review (reviewer identities known) Paid peer review Automated screening toolsuser-923069Peer reviewing is the best way, but it is dying
- Paid peer review Automated screening tools Structured review formatsuser-673903Automated screening tools could weed out submissions with poor language and grammar.
- Ongoing post-publication peer review Paid peer review Structured review formatsuser-90744more structure peer review will help the reviewer to analyse the paper and submit response efffectively. if journal is offering paid review process then scientist provide positive contribution to the review process if implemented.
- Paid peer review Structured review formatsuser-337244It would be beneficial for the reviewer to get paid and helping to do more attentive review processing.
- Paid peer reviewuser-634909Scientist salaries have not kept up. The free service scientists have been trained to be part of would be consindered paid expert consulation in many other fields. The turn-around times for review are ridiculous. The current system may work for people near the end of their career or who may not have other major responsibilities (teaching, parenting, managing). It doesn't work for many others and it impacts the quality of reviews. Scientists are humans too and deserve to be compensated for their expertise like in other fields (law, business, etc.)
- Other [please specify]user-751579The major problem is not solely the quality of reviews, meaning the skills and qualifications of the reviewers but the quality of the reviewees as well. The above suggested automated screening tools could help prevent from reaching an actual peer review process papers that do not merit not only publications, but the devotion of any time and effort for a review. Reviewers should be rewarded and protected, but this also implies that a relevant accreditation to worthy peers should be ascribed.
- Paid peer review Structured review formatsuser-135268Peer review requires both expertise and time. Unfortunately, experts also need to earn money to make a living and it is more important for them to devote time to this. I do peer review to fulfill my responsibility to the scientific community, but not everyone thinks this way. If experts are paid, they might be more willing to do evaluations. But this will undoubtedly lead to abuse, so a very systematic and planned approach is needed. It is a fact that reviewers use artificial intelligence in their evaluations without reading the documents.In fact, I find the use of “automated screening tools” useful, but I am in favor of using artificial intelligence trained according to certain standards, unlike standard approaches.“Structured review formats” will ensure that the opinions of experts are conveyed within certain standards. The important thing is that the files being evaluated are evaluated according to certain standards. When a reviewer is doing a peer review for a scientific journal, if he/she is doing it for a scientific journal, he/she should follow the journal standards. These standards can be established by the journal in certain patterns. It is a big mistake for any reviewer to evaluate a manuscript submitted to a journal with an impact factor of 4 as if it will be published in a journal with an impact factor of 15. The priority is scientific accuracy, followed by the standards in that field.
- Open peer review (reviewer identities known)user-521833To improve the quality of science and trust in the system. An open transparent peer-review will build confidence in the system and the science outputs. Review names should be disclosed during the review process
- Open peer review (reviewer identities known)user-881641Open peer review enhances transparency and accountability by making reviewer comments and identities public. This fosters constructive criticism, reduces bias, and encourages higher-quality reviews.
- Paid peer reviewuser-218578open access journals make alot of money, and they could pay some to the reviewers.
- Paid peer review Structured review formatsuser-219698As stated above.
- Automated screening toolsuser-328598SEE ABOVE
- Structured review formatsuser-743316Structured review formats will reduce the time taken to draft the review report and as such contribute to faster publication.
- Paid peer reviewuser-441980Introduce a Revenue-Sharing Model for Reviewers and Editors
- Compensate Reviewers Based on Quality of Review
A tiered payment system could incentivize high-quality peer reviews:- ⭐⭐⭐ Review: 15% of APC
- ⭐⭐⭐⭐ Review: 20% of APC
- ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ Review: 25% of APC
Evaluation of review quality to be done by the handling editor based on depth, constructiveness, and timeliness.
- ⭐⭐⭐ Review: 15% of APC
- Share Revenue with Editors
Editors play a crucial role in manuscript evaluation and coordinating peer review. They should receive 40% of the APC, recognizing their workload and judgment responsibility. - Why This Matters
- Encourages faster and higher-quality reviews.
- Fairly compensates academic labor.
- Makes the system more transparent and accountable.
- Potentially improves reviewer recruitment and retention.
- Encourages faster and higher-quality reviews.
- Compensate Reviewers Based on Quality of Review
- Paid peer reviewuser-526097Publishers have incredibly low costs (they don't even need to pay for printing as journals are now almost always online only), and charge huge amounts for open access. Visit either Wiley or Elsevier's offices and you will see a company that can afford to pay for peer-review without breaking a sweat.
- Paid peer review Other [please specify]user-332757Paying reviewers could serve as an incentive, while more rigorous initial screening by journal publishers would also be beneficial.
- Other [please specify]user-43093No one of the above bullet-points guarantee. The first is the best.
- Structured review formatsuser-82487This must contain appropriate format. Each journal should device the format based on its own requirements
- Paid peer reviewuser-75410Paid peer review with evaluation of the review itself.
- Other [please specify]user-573537Another very important factor is the rush to publish, the so called publish-or-perish environment. Reputed research centers should establish a policy of an onsite review, before submission of a manuscript.
- Ongoing post-publication peer review Open peer review (reviewer identities known)user-649468better to open review
- Ongoing post-publication peer review Paid peer review Automated screening toolsuser-650721Paying people for their time would offset the feeling of doing this work for free. AI could check for issues I suppose but don’t know if it would exclude good science. Post pub peer review can happen based on letters to the editor. ‘Structured review formats’ too vague so didn’t check that box.
- Ongoing post-publication peer review Automated screening toolsuser-869302Ongoing peer review would diminish the ability of some researchers to seek unwarranted attention via press releases. Automated tools that identify incorrect grammar would free reviewers to focus on the scientific work rather than readability.
- Automated screening tools Other [please specify]user-255680Introduce submission and archiving of study raw data with the journal publisher, with automated review for scientific misconduct.
user-589243
03/26/2025 12:20