On the money value of peer review

Scientometrics

Volumn 115, Issue 1, 2018, Pages 613-620

  Copiello, Sergio ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY IUAV OF VENICE   (Italy)

Author keywords

Peer review; Publishing industry; Reviewers reward; Scientific publishing

Indexed keywords

EID: 85041541966     PISSN: 01389130     EISSN: 15882861     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11192-018-2664-3     Document Type: Letter

References (31)

1. Bohannon, J. (2013). Who’s afraid of peer review? Science, 342(6154), 60–65. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.342.6154.60.
2. Bornmann, L. (2011). Scientific peer review. Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 45(1), 197–245. https://doi.org/10.1002/aris.2011.1440450112.
3. Casnici, N., Grimaldo, F., Gilbert, N., & Squazzoni, F. (2017). Attitudes of referees in a multidisciplinary journal: An empirical analysis. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 68(7), 1763–1771. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23665.
4. Chang, J., & Lai, C. (2001). Is it worthwhile to pay referees? Southern Economic Journal, 68(2), 457–463.
5. Chetty, R., Saez, E., & Sandor, L. (2014). What policies increase prosocial behavior? An experiment with referees at the journal of public economics. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 28(3), 169–188. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.28.3.169.
6. Engers, M., & Gans, J. S. (1998). Why referees are not paid (Enough). The American Economic Review, 88(5), 1341–1349.
7. Ferguson, C., Marcus, A., & Oransky, I. (2014). The peer-review scam. Nature, 515(7528), 480–482. https://doi.org/10.1038/515480a.
8. Freedman, C. (2000). Do economic journals obey economic prescriptions? Review of Industrial Organization, 17(4), 371–384.
9. Gneezy, U., & Rustichini, A. (2000). Pay enough or don’t pay at all. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(3), 791–810. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355300554917.
10. Grainger, D. W. (2007). Peer review as professional responsibility. A quality control system only as good as the participants. Biomaterials, 28(34), 5199–5203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biomaterials.2007.07.004.
11. Hamermesh, D. S. (1994). Facts and myths about refereeing. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(1), 153–163. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.8.1.153.
12. Harrison, D. (2002). Obligations and obfuscations in the review process. Academy of Management Journal, 45(6), 1079–1084. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2002.9265944.
13. Haug, C. J. (2015). Peer-review fraud—hacking the scientific publication process. The New England Journal of Medicine, 373, 2393–2395. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1512330.
14. Ho, R. C.-M., Mak, K.-K., Tao, R., Lu, Y., Day, J. R., & Pan, F. (2013). Views on the peer review system of biomedical journals: an online survey of academics from high-ranking universities. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 13, 74. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-74.
15. Jirschitzka, J., Oeberst, A., Göllner, R., et al. (2017). Inter-rater reliability and validity of peer reviews in an interdisciplinary field. Scientometrics, 113(2), 1059–1092. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2516-6.
16. Lee, C. J., Sugimoto, C. R., Zhang, G., & Cronin, B. (2013). Bias in peer review. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(1), 2–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22784.
17. Neff, B. D., & Olden, J. D. (2006). Is peer review a game of chance? BioScience, 56(4), 333–340. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2006)56[333:IPRAGO]2.0.CO;2.
18. Nicholas, D., Watkinson, A., Jamali, H. R., Herman, E., Tenopir, C., Volentine, R., et al. (2015). Peer review: Still king in the digital age. Learned Publishing, 28, 15–21. https://doi.org/10.1087/20150104.
19. Northcraft, G. B., & Tenbrunsel, A. E. (2011). Effective matrices, decision frames, and cooperation in volunteer dilemmas: A theoretical perspective on academic peer review. Organization Science, 22(5), 1277–1285. https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1100.0607.
20. Pitsoulis, A., & Schnellenbach, J. (2012). On property rights and incentives in academic publishing. Research Policy, 41(8), 1440–1447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.005.
21. Resnik, D. B., Gutierrez-Ford, C., & Peddada, S. (2008). Perceptions of ethical problems with scientific journal peer review: An exploratory study. Science and Engineering Ethics, 14(3), 305–310. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-008-9059-4.
22. Seeber, M., & Bacchelli, A. (2017). Does single blind peer review hinder newcomers? Scientometrics, 113(1), 567–585. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2264-7.
23. Squazzoni, F., Bravo, G., & Takács, K. (2013). Does incentive provision increase the quality of peer review? An experimental study. Research Policy, 42(1), 287–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.04.014.
24. Squazzoni, F., Brezis, E., & Marušić, A. (2017a). Scientometrics of peer review. Scientometrics, 113(1), 501–502. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2518-4.
25. Squazzoni, F., Grimaldo, F., & Marušić, A. (2017b). Journals could share peer-review data. Nature, 546(7658), 352. https://doi.org/10.1038/546352a.
26. Stigbrand, T. (2017). Retraction note to multiple articles in tumor biology. Tumor Biology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13277-017-5487-6.
27. Sugimoto, C. R., & Cronin, B. (2013). Citation gamesmanship: Testing for evidence of ego bias in peer review. Scientometrics, 95(3), 851–862. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-012-0845-z.
28. Thompson, G. D., Aradhyula, S. V., Frisvold, G., & Tronstad, R. (2010). Does paying referees expedite reviews? Results of a natural experiment. Southern Economic Journal, 76(3), 678–692. https://doi.org/10.4284/sej.2010.76.3.678.
29. Tite, L., & Schroter, S. (2007). Why do peer reviewers decline to review? A survey. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 61(1), 9–12. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2006.049817.
30. Wilhite, A. W., & Fong, E. A. (2012). Coercive citation in academic publishing. Science, 335(6086), 542–543. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1212540.
31. Zaharie, M. A., & Osoian, C. L. (2016). Peer review motivation frames: A qualitative approach. European Management Journal, 34(1), 69–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2015.12.004.