2

SciPoll 897: Compensated Peer Review Model: Speed vs. Payment

As a peer reviewer of a journal manuscript, what level of compensation would you require to complete a peer review within the following expedited time frames? (assume USD for costs)

Share Page
Post on LinkedIn
Copy URL to Clipboard
Copied!

Results

$0 <$100 $100-$200 $200-$500 $500 - $999 $1000 - $1999 >$2000 Total
1 day 3.25% 5 4.55% 7 11.04% 17 22.08% 34 27.27% 42 14.94% 23 16.88% 26 154
3 days 2.63% 4 5.92% 9 26.32% 40 28.29% 43 19.08% 29 14.47% 22 3.29% 5 152
1 week 1.90% 3 15.82% 25 33.54% 53 25.95% 41 17.72% 28 4.43% 7 0.63% 1 158
2 weeks 9.49% 15 24.05% 38 35.44% 56 17.72% 28 10.13% 16 1.90% 3 1.27% 2 158
1 month 26.80% 41 27.45% 42 25.49% 39 10.46% 16 5.88% 9 1.31% 2 2.61% 4 153

Answer Explanations

  • user-708958
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day0001000
    3 days0001000
    1 week0001000
    2 weeks0010000
    1 month0100000
    That is my month salary in Ukraine 
  • user-344135
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day0000001
    3 days0000010
    1 week0000100
    2 weeks0001000
    1 month0100000
    Returning a peer review in 24 hours means putting aside other paid work. At my level of expertise, I’d expect to be compensated at a similar rate. 
  • user-305063
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day0000001
    3 days0000010
    1 week0000100
    2 weeks1000000
    1 month1000000
    In general, I don’t expect compensation for peer review.  In exceptional circumstances, however, I can see compensation being an incentive for expedited review (eg, 1-3 days).  I fear that paying reviewers could induce bias and/or degrade the quality of review.
  • user-531589
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day0001000
    3 days0010000
    1 week0010000
    2 weeks0000001
    1 month0000001
    If they don't care it will be quite expensive.  Time = Money
  • user-837802
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day0000100
    3 days0001000
    1 week0010000
    2 weeks0010000
    1 month0010000
    1 day is impossible and takes full day to do the job, provided I do nothing else, so thats a fair Compensation
  • user-432588
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day0000010
    3 days0000010
    1 week0000010
    2 weeks0000100
    1 month0000100
    El nivel de compensación que seleccionó refleja no solo el tiempo necesario para realizar una revisión por pares rigurosa y de alta calidad, sino también el costo de oportunidad asociado con plazos más cortos. Como médico en ejercicio e investigador, mi agenda profesional incluye responsabilidades clínicas, trabajo académico y proyectos en curso. Completar una revisión exhaustiva en un plazo de uno a tres días requeriría ajustes significativos en el horario y priorizar otras obligaciones.

    Una estructura de compensación significativa para la revisión acelerada debe reconocer tanto el trabajo intelectual involucrado (incluida la evaluación crítica de la metodología, el análisis estadístico y la interpretación) como la disrupción práctica asociada con los tiempos de respuesta cortos.

    Para plazos más largos (de 2 semanas a 1 mes), el umbral de compensación es más bajo porque la revisión se puede integrar de manera más razonable en las responsabilidades profesionales existentes sin una reasignación sustancial de tiempo.

    Esta estructura refleja un equilibrio entre equidad, garantía de calidad y restricciones profesionales realistas.

  • user-445218
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day0000010
    3 days0000100
    1 week0000100
    2 weeks0000100
    1 month0000100
    Disappointing question, it would depend on the length and complexity of the paper.  The above are just guesses without this qualification.
  • user-489806
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day0010000
    3 days0010000
    1 week0100000
    2 weeks0100000
    1 month1000000
    If someone wants me to adjust my schedule immediately, they need to pay for it.
  • user-813332
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day0000010
    3 days0000100
    1 week0000100
    2 weeks0001000
    1 month0001000
    Prioritising reviews means putting current work on hold, which often has its own expense.
  • user-269790
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day0001000
    3 days0010000
    1 week0010000
    2 weeks0100000
    1 month0100000
    An adequate review typically takes 1-2 hours.  A rush request will add to the inconvenience.
  • user-673903
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day0001000
    3 days0001000
    1 week0001000
    2 weeks0001000
    1 month0001000
    It's about time spent reviewing.
  • user-148583
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day0001000
    3 days0010000
    1 week0100000
    2 weeks0100000
    1 month1000000
    I am usually quite busy, so if you require me to expedite the review, I believe it is reasonable to charge a fee. However, if the review takes longer than two weeks, no fee should be charged.

  • user-786434
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day0000100
    3 days0000100
    1 week0001000
    2 weeks0001000
    1 month0001000
    I could review for a subscription publication for free. For open access, peer review should be paid
  • user-890708
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day
    3 days
    1 week0001000
    2 weeks
    1 month
    审稿过程会花费大量的人力和物力，如没有适当的报酬不能体现人的智力贡献。
  • user-267566
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day0001000
    3 days0010000
    1 week0100000
    2 weeks0100000
    1 month1000000
    To review an article within a short time requires I will shelf other activities for a while, or better still, engage someone to assist. Hence, it is important I get renumeration for the review. 
  • user-169864
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day0000010
    3 days0000100
    1 week0001000
    2 weeks0010000
    1 month0100000
    I value my time.
  • user-407672
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day0000010
    3 days0000100
    1 week0001000
    2 weeks0010000
    1 month1000000
     
    Suggested explanation: 

    My compensation expectations increase as the requested review timeline becomes more compressed, reflecting the opportunity cost of reallocating professional commitments on short notice. Expedited reviews (e.g., 1–3 days) require prioritizing the manuscript over ongoing research, teaching, and writing responsibilities, and therefore justify higher compensation. 

    For standard timelines (e.g., one month), while the pressure is lower, peer review still represents specialized intellectual labor that requires careful reading, critical analysis, and detailed feedback. Even under typical time frames, I believe this work has professional value. My responses reflect a balance between recognizing academic norms and acknowledging the expertise and time involved in producing a high-quality review. 

  • user-77256
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day0000001
    3 days0000010
    1 week0000100
    2 weeks0001000
    1 month0010000
    Nowadays all of us have to deliver within time limits for our primary job. For additional assignments, one has to work overtime to deliver a just acceptable output of both tasks in hand. Moreover, so far reviewers are reviewing honorarily for the sake of knowledge but the publishing houses are earning based on those works
  • user-983537
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day1000000
    3 days1000000
    1 week0001000
    2 weeks0010000
    1 month0010000
    I won't commit to reviewing a paper faster than in one week. Such fast reviews are sloppy and superficial. 
  • user-566347
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day0001000
    3 days0010000
    1 week0100000
    2 weeks0100000
    1 month1000000
    Compensation for peer review should depend on the urgency and workload involved. Since the review process is critical and time-consuming, expedited reviews should be compensated more than reviews with longer timelines
  • user-846675
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day0000100
    3 days0001000
    1 week0010000
    2 weeks0100000
    1 month0100000
    Reviewing a paper in a day, will require me to take time off from day job to complete or performed on personal time. The rest seems like a reasonable compensation for the time required, without making publishing enterprise too expensive.
  • user-388260
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day0000010
    3 days0000100
    1 week0001000
    2 weeks0010000
    1 month1000000

    As an academic with a demanding role as Assistant Professor, I value timely reviews but prioritize scientific rigor. My required compensation (in USD) for expedited journal manuscript reviews is as follows:

    Time FrameRequired Compensation
    1 day | $1000 - $1999
    3 days | $500 - $999
    1 week | $200-$500
    2 weeks | $100-$200
    1 month | $0

    These levels reflect the balance between my expertise in molecular genetics peer reviewing and scheduling constraints from teaching, research, and grant-funded projects at Women University of Azad Jammu & Kashmir. Shorter deadlines demand higher compensation due to the need to reprioritize ongoing WES analyses and manuscript preparation.

  • user-390769
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day0000100
    3 days0001000
    1 week0010000
    2 weeks0010000
    1 month0100000
     The estimated compensation reflects the workload involved in conducting a rigorous peer review. Preparing a high-quality review requires several hours of work from a highly trained professional with advanced academic training. It involves careful reading, critical evaluation of the methodology and analysis, and the ability to provide constructive and analytically grounded feedback. 
  • user-450723
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day0000100
    3 days0010000
    1 week0010000
    2 weeks0100000
    1 month1000000
    1 day is an aggressive turnaround that would require sacrificing other tasks or disrupt regular workflow.
  • user-732397
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day0000100
    3 days0000100
    1 week0001000
    2 weeks0010000
    1 month1000000
    Unfortunately, we are all already given pretty short deadlines for (free) peer review, on the order of 10-14 days. 
  • user-51850
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day0000100
    3 days0001000
    1 week0010000
    2 weeks0010000
    1 month0100000
    If I have a short period of time to evaluate the document I need to stop all the other activities and need to compensate that time. 
  • user-958242
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day0000100
    3 days0001000
    1 week0010000
    2 weeks0010000
    1 month0100000
    Nothiong comes free in this scietific world.Reviewers are spending their valuable time at expense of some work for earning in case of rapid review depending on window period.
    Wereas in long period of peer review , a minutes is suffice ever day to complete.

    Everyone needs to earn at expense of some paid work
  • user-446741
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day0000010
    3 days0000100
    1 week0001000
    2 weeks1000000
    1 month1000000
    2 weeks is a reasonable turnaround time for a standard “pro bono” review, which should remain the default mechanism.
  • user-681633
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day0010000
    3 days0010000
    1 week0010000
    2 weeks0100000
    1 month0100000
    If I am already an expert of that field, I don't need much time. But if it is very urgent and I have to do it leaving other work, I will need a very minute compensation.
  • user-274910
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day0000001
    3 days0000010
    1 week0000100
    2 weeks0001000
    1 month0010000
    My selections are based on standard professional consulting rates for scientific experts, factoring in the time required to conduct a thorough, high-quality review (typically 4-8 hours). A 1-month turnaround allows me to fit this work naturally into my schedule, so a baseline compensation of $100-$200 covers the time fairly. However, reviewing a manuscript in 1 to 3 days requires a 'rush fee' model. To do this, I must completely disrupt my workflow, delay grant writing, cancel meetings, or work late into the night/weekend. The compensation for these highly expedited timeframes (>$1000) reflects the severe opportunity cost and the premium required to drop all other professional obligations on such short notice.
  • user-542491
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day
    3 days0100000
    1 week
    2 weeks
    1 month
    Reasonable
  • user-919618
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day0001000
    3 days0010000
    1 week0010000
    2 weeks0100000
    1 month1000000
    The required compensation is assumed to be inversely related to the time available to complete the peer review. Shorter deadlines impose greater time pressure and opportunity costs, thus requiring higher compensation, whereas longer deadlines allow the task to be integrated into regular academic responsibilities and therefore justify lower compensation. 
  • user-708389
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day1000000
    3 days1000000
    1 week1000000
    2 weeks1000000
    1 month1000000
    Academic work is a passion
  • user-561710
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day0000100
    3 days0000010
    1 week0000001
    2 weeks0000001
    1 month0000001
    you can probably do it for 500 for 1 day.
  • user-657031
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day0010000
    3 days0010000
    1 week0100000
    2 weeks0100000
    1 month0100000
    I have been doing it for free for a long time.
  • user-2402
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day0000001
    3 days0000001
    1 week0000010
    2 weeks0000100
    1 month0000100
    I've never been paid to peer review a paper before.  The convention is that this is service to the research community and it's expected.  As I've become more busy with my own projects and overseeing staff scientists work, I have been declining ALL peer review "opportunities."  I'd love to get paid for it and financial incentive would allow me to say yes more often.
  • user-328368
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day0000100
    3 days0001000
    1 week0010000
    2 weeks0010000
    1 month0100000
    compensation scaled to offset  other revenue over the period.
  • user-842136
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day0000100
    3 days0001000
    1 week0010000
    2 weeks0100000
    1 month1000000
    To review a full paper, conduct your own research, make useful comments that would enhance the quality and rigor of the paper, taking the time from the reviewer is worth it
  • user-131633
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day0001000
    3 days0001000
    1 week0010000
    2 weeks0010000
    1 month0010000
    The minimum time I dedicate to reviewing a manuscript is one working day.
  • user-444538
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day0000001
    3 days0000010
    1 week0000100
    2 weeks0001000
    1 month0001000
    Peer reviewing requires several hours of concentrated work, including reading the manuscript in detail, checking methodology, verifying claims, and preparing constructive feedback. Completing this process within a very short deadline requires rearranging existing responsibilities, so compensation reflects the additional time pressure and workload prioritisation involved.
  • user-32677
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day0100000
    3 days0100000
    1 week0100000
    2 weeks1000000
    1 month1000000
    Reviewers should be compensated if they are given a timeframe to complete the process since they will have to make time from their jobs, read up on the subject to provide an appropriate assesment. We should also consider that international peer reviewers also need time zones to be taken into consideration of provided with a deadline. 
  • user-261420
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day0001000
    3 days0010000
    1 week0010000
    2 weeks0100000
    1 month1000000
    review turnaround in one 1 day is the only review type that would require significant compensation. Within 3 days would require smaller compensation
  • user-125084
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day0000010
    3 days0000100
    1 week0001000
    2 weeks0010000
    1 month0100000
    A high-quality peer review requires careful evaluation of experimental design, statistical analysis, data interpretation, and reproducibility of the findings. My experience reviewing genomics and transcriptomics studies allows me to assess methodological rigor, data quality, and the strength of the conclusions. Adequate time is necessary to ensure that scientific claims are supported by robust evidence and clearly reported.

  • user-28508
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day0000010
    3 days0000100
    1 week0000100
    2 weeks0001000
    1 month0001000
     The pricing reflects the time and expertise needed to carefully and responsibly edit a manuscript — a process that demands significant effort beyond one's regular research responsibilities. 
  • user-749781
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day
    3 days
    1 week
    2 weeks0000100
    1 month
     detailed review (8–12 hours)
  • user-325101
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day0000001
    3 days0000010
    1 week0000100
    2 weeks0001000
    1 month0010000
    Refereeing is a difficult task when time is limited.
  • user-166535
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day
    3 days0100000
    1 week
    2 weeks
    1 month
    3 day is OK for hard working review process 
  • user-327055
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day0001000
    3 days0010000
    1 week0100000
    2 weeks1000000
    1 month1000000
    If the review needs to be done in a day, I need to take the day off my work and  put complete focus on the manuscript. 
  • user-789652
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day0010000
    3 days0001000
    1 week0000100
    2 weeks0000010
    1 month0000001
     Compensation for expedited peer review is justified because reviewing a manuscript requires substantial time, specialized expertise, and careful critical analysis. When journals request reviews within short deadlines, reviewers must prioritize the task over other professional responsibilities such as research, teaching, or clinical duties. Payment acknowledges this opportunity cost, recognizes the reviewer’s expertise, and helps ensure timely, high-quality evaluations that maintain the integrity of the scientific publication process.
  • user-437303
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day0010000
    3 days0100000
    1 week1000000
    2 weeks1000000
    1 month1000000
    I generally try to get right to it but some reviews require further consideration (I.e.,”sleeping on it”). Rushing raises the risk of incomplete consideration. I’d want to be remunerated for my risking my reputation. I’m not suggesting that my reputation is only worth such low amounts while appreciating such costs could be a barrier for some authors. 
  • user-697539
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day
    3 days
    1 week
    2 weeks0010000
    1 month
    Involves taking time out from a busy schedule and a focused effort to complete the review that is fair and scientifically valid.
  • user-476854
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day0000100
    3 days0001000
    1 week0010000
    2 weeks0100000
    1 month0100000
    The more time for the revision the less payments needed. As the researcher has research work to do. Being stressed in little time for the review means that you should leave your research work and be full time available for the review.
  • user-863425
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day0000100
    3 days
    1 week0001000
    2 weeks0010000
    1 month0100000
    This timeframe may require immediate, often after-hours work.

    High-pressure, short-deadline reviews justify a significant premium.

    Expert-level feedback is expected despite the time crunch

  • user-595708
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day0000001
    3 days0000010
    1 week0000100
    2 weeks0001000
    1 month0010000
    Reviewing paper it's a time consuming job and it must be done over your other istitutional duty, to do it in 1 day it's not only difficult ma also stressful
  • user-387469
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day0000010
    3 days0000100
    1 week0000100
    2 weeks0001000
    1 month0010000
    the faster it needs to be done, the more it needs to be payed
  • user-633032
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day0000010
    3 days0000100
    1 week0001000
    2 weeks0010000
    1 month0010000
    I thin 100-200$ would be the minimum, at then the price would increase if the task is urgent
  • user-153764
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day1000000
    3 days1000000
    1 week1000000
    2 weeks1000000
    1 month1000000
    all journal reviews are on voluntary basis.  
  • user-153741
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day0000001
    3 days0000001
    1 week0000010
    2 weeks0000100
    1 month0000100
    Length of the paper and quality of the writing should also be factors
  • user-786336
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day0000001
    3 days0000010
    1 week0000100
    2 weeks0001000
    1 month0010000
    The compensation levels above reflect the opportunity cost and the technical rigor required to maintain high peer-review standards under expedited conditions.

  • user-854520
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day1000000
    3 days1000000
    1 week0001000
    2 weeks0010000
    1 month0100000
    In my view, reviewers should be compensated for their contributions to the peer-review process. Reviewers play a critical role in maintaining the quality and integrity of scholarly publications, and their time and expertise deserve recognition. The exact amount of compensation may vary depending on factors such as the financial capacity, reputation, and publishing model of the journal or publisher. Ideally, a thorough and high-quality peer review would take approximately one week to complete. A review completed within 1–3 days is generally unlikely to achieve the same level of depth and rigor, regardless of the reviewer’s expertise. 

  • user-373556
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day0000010
    3 days0000100
    1 week0001000
    2 weeks0010000
    1 month0010000
    The payment serves as a motivational factor for the reviewer to drop other schedules and face only the peer review 
  • user-78358
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day
    3 days
    1 week
    2 weeks0010000
    1 month
    This is fair for a reviewer
  • user-50392
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day0000100
    3 days0000100
    1 week0001000
    2 weeks0001000
    1 month0001000
    <1 week would require more compensation as it would cause one to rearrange their entire busy schedule considerably.
  • user-763126
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day0000100
    3 days0001000
    1 week0010000
    2 weeks0100000
    1 month1000000
    Compensation for expedited peer review depends on the time commitment, the opportunity cost for the reviewer, and the level of urgency requested by the journal. According to me, a typical high-quality peer review for a scientific manuscript usually requires 3-6 hours of focused work, including reading the manuscript, checking references and figures, evaluating methodology, and writing constructive comments. When journals request accelerated timelines, compensation may reasonably increase because the reviewer must reprioritize other academic or professional tasks.
    In my opinion:
    1. Standard Review (2–3 weeks), suggested compensation shold be <100 USD
    Many journals do not pay reviewers for standard timelines because peer review is traditionally considered a professional service to the scientific community. Some journals offer small honoraria or vouchers instead. The cost is low because reviewers can schedule the work flexibly.
    2. Fast Review (7 days), suggested compensation: 100–200 USD.
    A one-week turnaround requires prioritizing the review over other responsibilities such as teaching, research, or grant writing. Compensation acknowledges the time pressure and opportunity cost, while remaining realistic for journal budgets.
    3. Rapid Review (72 hours), suggested compensation: 200–500 USD.
    Completing a thorough evaluation within three days usually means immediate scheduling adjustments and concentrated work. At this stage, the reviewer must read and assess the manuscript quickly without sacrificing quality, which justifies higher compensation.
    4. Emergency Review (24 hours), suggested compensation: 500–999 USD
    A 24-hour deadline requires dropping other commitments and working almost immediately. The payment reflects the need for rapid availability and the risk that quality could suffer if insufficient time is allocated. Higher compensation incentivizes experienced reviewers to accept such urgent requests.

  • user-196036
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day0100000
    3 days0010000
    1 week0001000
    2 weeks0000100
    1 month0000010
    The more days a manuscript needs to be reviewed, the more time and effort the reviewer will need, and therefore the higher the rate of payment for peer review in the journal.
  • user-194474
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day0000010
    3 days0000100
    1 week0001000
    2 weeks0010000
    1 month1000000
    I usually can accommodate my schedule from one week to the other. Less than 3 days can compete with my current work and would mean extra-hours work, but could be done if the cost/benefit is enough, and I'm well within my field of expertise
  • user-464898
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day0000010
    3 days0000100
    1 week0001000
    2 weeks0010000
    1 month0100000
    I believe peer reviewers should be compensated.
  • user-326452
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day0000100
    3 days0000100
    1 week0001000
    2 weeks0001000
    1 month0001000
    It really depends on my schedule, if i am free i am happy to do it, but if i am busy i might ask for additional money to include the reviewing of the paper in my schedule.
  • user-348510
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day0010000
    3 days0010000
    1 week0100000
    2 weeks0100000
    1 month0100000
    Although I understand how important is to review a manuscript quickly, It is often difficult to find a slot in a very busy day. Getting a money reward could be a good stimulus to be quicker.
  • user-190288
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day0000001
    3 days0000010
    1 week0001000
    2 weeks0001000
    1 month0001000
    My work flow tends to 3 to 7 days. I generally want about 500 for doing a review. 
  • user-472081
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day0000100
    3 days0001000
    1 week0001000
    2 weeks0010000
    1 month0010000
    With shorter timeframes something else needs to be bumped down the todo list
  • user-551383
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day0000001
    3 days0000100
    1 week0000100
    2 weeks0001000
    1 month0010000
    I would start by saying that free of charge peer review is a double edged sword: it is both the essential for modern science and a blatant exploitation of academic labor. That said:
    1 day is barely possible. It would take 20 straight hours to do a poor to fair job and then I don't see why a high compensation should not be considered. Other options are feasible, but still I consider compensated peer-review as the most democratic step Publishers will have to take in the near future.
  • user-382281
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day0000100
    3 days0001000
    1 week0010000
    2 weeks0010000
    1 month0100000
    Because I need to spend my time outside of work to conduct the peer review seriously, I also have to ensure high-quality reviews. 
  • user-580426
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day0001000
    3 days0010000
    1 week0100000
    2 weeks0100000
    1 month0100000

    Key Reasons for Compensating Peer Reviewers


    Improved Efficiency and Speed

    Trials indicate that offering payment or honoraria to peer reviewers can accelerate the review process. This reduction in turnaround time helps alleviate the bottleneck often experienced in publishing research, allowing scientific findings to reach the community more promptly.


    Increased Reviewer Engagement

    Compensation acknowledges the significant skill and time required for peer review. By recognising this contribution, researchers are more inclined to accept invitations to review and commit to conducting thorough and detailed evaluations.


    Ensuring Quality and Rigor

    When reviewers are paid, they are held to a higher standard of accountability. This often results in more rigorous and reliable assessments, which help maintain the credibility and integrity of scientific journals.


    Equity and Inclusivity

    Payment makes peer review more accessible to early-career researchers, those at under-resourced institutions, and individuals in lower-income countries. By compensating reviewers, the process becomes more inclusive and enables greater diversity within the reviewer pool.


    Addressing Economic Imbalance

    Academic publishing is a highly profitable industry. By offering compensation, the value generated is redistributed, rewarding researchers for their expertise and effort rather than depending solely on voluntary labour.

  • user-34741
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day
    3 days
    1 week
    2 weeks
    1 month0010000
    It is understandable that journals also charge the APC to cover running costs, printing rights, and legal implications. However, I feel a bit of the APC funds should allow reviewers a percentage of the funds for their time to read, analyze, and scrutinize the manuscript. Also, to give feedback.
  • user-320876
    $0<$100$100-$200$200-$500$500 - $999$1000 - $1999>$2000
    1 day0000010
    3 days0000010
    1 week0000100
    2 weeks0000100
    1 month0000100
    For the last four decades, I’ve been a reviewer for various scientific journals without ever focusing on financial compensation. More recently, as a selected reviewer for SciPinion, I’ve been involved in re-reviews of already published articles, which come with specific assignments, considerations, and associated fees. These tasks are distinct for their higher level of scrutiny, offering monetary incentives to experts with specialized scientific knowledge. The process is unique, requiring experts to reassess articles that have already been accepted and published. I’ve enjoyed providing feedback on the strengths, weaknesses, and limitations of published work, and it’s especially fulfilling to see collective insights from this process lead to new publications. 
    Since retiring, I’ve written three books and several articles, expanding on our earlier discoveries about the role of inflammation in acute, chronic, and infectious diseases, including its links to carcinogenesis and angiogenesis. 
    It’s also gratifying to see that, despite initial hesitation and skepticism from decision makers at NCI/NIH about the importance of inflammation and immunity in cancer research and therapy, the topic has become the focus of numerous funded projects.