To pay or not to pay reviewers of scientific papers

First published:

Last Edited:

Number of edits:

This article is marked as draft. It is not in its final form.

There's been a bit of a debate regarding whether scientists should be payed by the work they do as reviewers of papers. This has been an argument for a while, with some researchers refusing to do review work for free. For example:

However, discussing whether reviewers should be payed or not is merely whitewashing without asking the true hard to answer questions. It points, however, to one of the many symptoms of what is broken in academia: reviewing is seen as a job done for a publisher, not for the community nor the authors of the paper.

The reviewing landscape

First, I think it is important to do a quick overview of the status quo. After a paper is submitted, a number of peers review it. If it gets approved, we celebrate, if it is rejected, we submit to a different journal, with a lower impact. Which means two things: the work of the first batch of reviewers is neglected, and the number of people involved keeps increasing.


These are the other notes that link to this one.

Nothing links here, how did you reach this page then?


Share your thoughts on this note
Aquiles Carattino
Aquiles Carattino
This note you are reading is part of my digital garden. Follow the links to learn more, and remember that these notes evolve over time. After all, this website is not a blog.
© 2021 Aquiles Carattino
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License
Privacy Policy