Recent experiments by two journals indicate that offering around $250 for peer reviews can not only speed up the process but also maintain the quality of assessments. Critical Care Medicine's study revealed minimal motivating effect on reviewers, suggesting that peer reviewers may prioritize ethical obligations over monetary rewards. Conversely, Biology Open observed significant improvements in review times, prompting the journal to adopt this strategy widely. However, experts caution that while incentives might enhance efficiency, they could also introduce unforeseen implications for scientific integrity and the publishing landscape.
The investigation into payments for peer review suggests that small financial incentives can expedite the review process without harming the integrity, yet experts advise caution about unintended effects.
While a small financial incentive increased the speed of peer review, the underlying motivations for reviewers may complicate this method, highlighting an intricate balance between payment and ethical responsibility.
Collection
[
|
...
]