Amid high profits and falling wages, peer reviewers must be paid

Trusted to safeguard the calibre and authenticity of published research, peer reviewers are often viewed as academia’s most important gatekeepers. To use a grandiose allusion, they are publishers’ St Peter at the pearly gates.

To imagine these upstanding figures taking financial remuneration for this task is therefore jarring: it is a long-accepted view that peer review is performed pro bono.

But this dogma seems increasingly outdated in a world of rising publisher profits, real-terms cuts in academic salaries and reductions in funding to meet publication costs. Moreover, mounting pressures to deliver ever-increasing teaching, research and administrative commitments are taking their toll. Academics are increasingly, where possible, prioritising work-life balance and learning when to say “no”. Anecdotal evidence suggests that peer review is one of the first commitments to be reduced or eliminated.

The prospect of remunerating reviewers for their time and expertise has ignited fervent debate, with strong arguments for and against it. At the forefront of the argument for paying reviewers is the acknowledgment of the value of their expertise. Reviewers invest substantial time and energy in meticulously assessing research papers. Compensation would underscore the significance of their contributions and would be likely to entice more leading scholars to participate in the peer-review process.

Imagine your car has broken down. The chances of finding a skilled car mechanic to fix it for free are slim. Perhaps you might persuade your relative or a close friend to do so once or twice, but they would certainly baulk at repeated requests. Yet this seems to be the business model that academia has enthusiastically embraced.

Introducing financial incentives would inject a new vigour into the review process. Motivated by compensation, reviewers might be more inclined to prioritise their assignments, resulting in a prompt and thorough evaluation of manuscripts. It might also raise the status of reviewers, instilling a sense of responsibility and accountability that would foster a more rigorous and consistent standard when evaluating scholarly work.

Offering payment could also expand the much-needed diversity and inclusivity in peer review. Editors invariably end up relying on a narrow pool of reviewers who are willing to commit their time to a review process. This is inevitable when so many potential reviewers, weighed down by heavy teaching loads or inadequate institutional support, are likely to turn down review requests.

Of course, there are potential downsides. Some argue that reviewers who receive financial compensation might produce biased reviews or feel a need to nod through substandard work whose authors are paying their review fees. But does this argument hold water? Conflicts of interest are even more likely to arise with a small reviewer pool such as those the editors rely upon currently. Expanding the reviewer pool is likely to reduce the potential for any conflicts of interest.

A more persuasive argument is the impact on journal finances. Introducing a payment system would affect journal finances, potentially leading to increased subscription fees, open-access fees or limitations in the number of articles published. Some academic journals operate on tight budgets, relying on unpaid peer review to sustain their publication processes. However, more than 50 per cent of the academic publishing market is controlled by for-profit publishers including Elsevier, Wiley, Taylor & Francis, SpringerNature and SAGE. Given the staggeringly high profit margins of some of these publishers, paying reviewers seems a reasonable step, striking a balance that ensures fair compensation without compromising their financial viability.

Critics argue that the intrinsic motivation of scholars to contribute to the academic community could diminish with financial incentives. The passion for advancing knowledge and engaging in scholarly dialogue could be compromised if reviewers are primarily motivated by monetary gain rather than a genuine commitment to the advancement of their fields. This is the argument that seems most flawed. First, we do not expect that remuneration would ever be so substantial that it would provide the primary motivation to review. Second, in any job sector that we are aware of, financial incentives are more likely to increase the motivation rather than suppress it.

The creation of so-called reviewer mills is another danger highlighted by the sceptics of remuneration. One website already claims to have an in-house database of 20,000 reviewers and offers to enlist and compensate reviewers for a cost of $100 per review. The validity of these claims is unclear, but some think this is a glimpse into the future, should we choose to compensate the reviewers. As editors ourselves, we cannot imagine that established journals will be tempted to use such services, because our priority is to publish high-quality manuscripts. However, some predatory journals might already be using such services.

The question of whether reviewers should be compensated for their efforts in evaluating academic journals is a nuanced and polarising issue. Perhaps a direct payment for reviewer services might be unpalatable to some and thus we should consider other models. Alternative solutions include reduced publishing costs for reviewers and providing non-monetary incentives such as access to exclusive content, and networking or professional development opportunities – some of which have already been adopted by publishers. For the journals run by esteemed societies, reduced open-access fees in society journals or discounted registration fees for the society-run conferences are options to be considered.

These rewards – or inducements – might seem small given the time and effort invested by academics in peer review whose saintly devotion to upholding scholarly standards is surely reaching its limit.

Davor Pavlovic is associate professor at the Institute of Cardiovascular Sciences at the University of Birmingham and editor in chief of the Journal of Molecular and Cellular Cardiology Plus, whose deputy editor is Rebekah Gundry, professor and chair of the Department of Cellular and Integrative Physiology and director of the Center for Heart and Vascular Research at the University of Nebraska Medical Center in Omaha.