Blog
About

6
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found
      Is Open Access

      Free editors and peers: squeezing the lemon dry

      ,

      Ethics & Bioethics

      Walter de Gruyter GmbH

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          In this opinion piece, some of the practices of academic publication in the biomedical field related to the rewarding, or the lack thereof, of peer reviewers are described and discussed. The role and possibly exploitative relationship of mainstream, established publishers of prestigious journals towards their contributors (authors), and peer reviewers is considered. In addition, the role and accountability of publishers and contributors in “predatory” journals is assessed. Professionals who are recruited by the publishing industry, especially the for-profit industry, either as peer reviewers or editors, to complete a professional task, should be rewarded financially as professionals, as for other sectors of the economy, and not simply exploited for free. Points systems or discounts off a publisher’s products do not constitute sufficient, or fair, compensation.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 7

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Rewarding Peer Reviewers: Maintaining the Integrity of Science Communication

          This article overviews currently available options for rewarding peer reviewers. Rewards and incentives may help maintain the quality and integrity of scholarly publications. Publishers around the world implemented a variety of financial and nonfinancial mechanisms for incentivizing their best reviewers. None of these is proved effective on its own. A strategy of combined rewards and credits for the reviewers1 creative contributions seems a workable solution. Opening access to reviews and assigning publication credits to the best reviews is one of the latest achievements of digitization. Reviews, posted on academic networking platforms, such as Publons, add to the transparency of the whole system of peer review. Reviewer credits, properly counted and displayed on individual digital profiles, help distinguish the best contributors, invite them to review and offer responsible editorial posts.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            The evolution of peer review as a basis for scientific publication: directional selection towards a robust discipline?

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Hijacked journals, hijacked web-sites, journal phishing, misleading metrics, and predatory publishing: actual and potential threats to academic integrity and publishing ethics.

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Ethics & Bioethics
                Walter de Gruyter GmbH
                2453-7829
                December 1 2016
                December 1 2016
                : 6
                : 3-4
                : 203-209
                10.1515/ebce-2016-0011
                © 2016

                http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0

                Comments

                Comment on this article