Opinion Poll: Should Peer Reviewers be paid?

An interesting question arose at the Peer Review: Nuts and Bolts workshop on the 25th of April – should peer-reviewers be paid?

Rubriq are one publisher who pay their reviewers, saying:

“First, philosophically we feel that reviewers should be compensated for the valuable service they provide for the scientific community. Second, providing payment makes the process more formal, and can lead to more standards, training, and recognition. Finally, in order to be able to deliver high-quality, consistent reviews in a two-week timeline, it is important to provide compensation for that commitment. And by offering reviewers the option of an honorarium in lieu of payment, some of those earnings can even go directly back into research organizations.”

But what do you think?

Have your say in this poll:

You can also listen to the views of a selection of young academics here:


  1. I think peer reviewers should indeed be paid. But only if they do their job competently. Importantly, they should be forced to reimburse the journal if it turns out – as in the case of the infamous “Australian Paradox” paper – that they missed obvious errors, small and large, that invalidate the paper’s main “finding”, of “an inverse relationship” between sugar consumption and obesity:

    1. http://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/6/2/663/htm
    2. http://www.australianparadox.com/pdf/RRsubmission2inquiry.pdf

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s