Paying peer reviewers = 85% faster editorial decisions.
And payments gave high-quality reviews.
(the story is described in Nature)
At Biology Open, peer reviewers were paid for high quality reviews.
$290 per peer review.
Miraculously, the time to editorial decisions DROPPED:
- Unpaid reviews: 38 days.
- Paid reviews: 5-6 days.
And review quality WENT UP.
📍How it works:
“When researchers apply to become paid reviewers for Biology Open, we screen their CVs and check whether they’re legitimate and have peer-review experience. We currently have 500 pre-contracted reviewers from all over the world. Ideally, what I envision is a system where reviewer applicants undertake a manuscript-reviewing test. And we’d review that review, so if it scored high enough, we’d hire them.” - Editor-in-chief Daniel Gorelick.
Nature: “Do you think paying reviewers could work in other journals and in other disciplines?”
Editor-in-chief: “Absolutely. There’s been such a profound aversion to paying peer reviewers, whether it’s on principle or because people think it will never work. We’ve demonstrated that it works.”
So...
At last, there’s light at the end of the tunnel.
__