Blog
About

  • 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