Paying Peer Reviewers
The discussion
Bjorn: Journals should pay academics for peer review. Publishers make enormous profits while reviewers give up weekends for free, and the result is that good reviewers are overloaded and papers wait months.
Leila: I review regularly, and I worry that payment would change the motivation. At the moment I review because I want the field to be rigorous; once it's a paid task, people might rush through ten reports to earn more.
Chen: The bigger issue for me is that early-career researchers from poorer institutions do most of the reviewing already, because they can't refuse senior editors. Paying them would at least recognise work that currently counts for nothing in promotions.
Bjorn: Exactly, and a fixed fee per review with a limit on how many you can do per year would deal with Leila's quality concern.
Leila: A cap helps, though I'd rather the reward came in a different form, such as journals publishing reviewer names and universities counting reviews in promotion cases. Recognition fixes the incentive without turning it into piecework.
Chen: Recognition in promotions would help, but it's hard to get hundreds of universities to agree, whereas a journal can start paying tomorrow. I'd take the money now and push for recognition as well.
Leila: I can accept a modest fee alongside formal recognition, as long as the cap on reviews per person stays.