Name
Abstract | ||
|---|---|---|
Peer review is commonly recognized among the cornerstones of the scientific publishing system and, less narrowly, of scientific production in general. Although it plays such a fundamental role, peer review is carried out by academics for free. In other words, if a scientific publication generates revenues and profits—as usually happens for the journal articles accessible behind a paywall—reviewers neither participate in sharing the pie nor enjoy the banquet. Nevertheless, some publishers offer rewards for the peer review activity. Here I delve into the Elsevier’s reward scheme and argue that, given how it works, the implicit money value of peer review is likely to be positive for the publisher, but it translates in a real value that is close or equal to zero for the reviewers. Accordingly, I propose an alternative reward scheme that, essentially, reallocate a portion of the two-digit profit rates that main publishers currently achieve. |
Year | DOI | Venue |
|---|---|---|
2018 | 10.1007/s11192-018-2664-3 | Scientometrics |
Keywords | Field | DocType |
Peer review,Reviewers’ reward,Scientific publishing,Publishing industry | Revenue,Data mining,Banquet,Scientific production,Computer science,Publishing,Scientific publishing,Marketing | Journal |
Volume | Issue | ISSN |
115 | 1 | 0138-9130 |
Citations | PageRank | References |
1 | 0.35 | 9 |
Authors | ||
1 | ||
Name | Order | Citations | PageRank |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sergio Copiello | 1 | 6 | 3.44 |