Can a paid model for peer review be sustainable when the author can decide whether to pay or not?
Abstract Given how hard it is to recruit good reviewers who are aligned with authors in their functions, journal editors could consider the use of better incentives, such as paying reviewers for their time. In order to facilitate a speedy turn-around when a rapid decision is required, the peer-revie...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
García, J. A. [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2021 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Anmerkung: |
© The Author(s) 2021 |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: Scientometrics - Springer International Publishing, 1978, 127(2021), 3 vom: 31. Dez., Seite 1491-1514 |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:127 ; year:2021 ; number:3 ; day:31 ; month:12 ; pages:1491-1514 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1007/s11192-021-04248-8 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
OLC2078319457 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | OLC2078319457 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20230506001949.0 | ||
| 007 | tu | ||
| 008 | 221220s2021 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1007/s11192-021-04248-8 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)OLC2078319457 | ||
| 035 | |a (DE-He213)s11192-021-04248-8-p | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 082 | 0 | 4 | |a 050 |a 370 |q VZ |
| 084 | |a 11 |2 ssgn | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a García, J. A. |e verfasserin |0 (orcid)0000-0001-7742-7270 |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Can a paid model for peer review be sustainable when the author can decide whether to pay or not? |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2021 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen |b n |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Band |b nc |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a © The Author(s) 2021 | ||
| 520 | |a Abstract Given how hard it is to recruit good reviewers who are aligned with authors in their functions, journal editors could consider the use of better incentives, such as paying reviewers for their time. In order to facilitate a speedy turn-around when a rapid decision is required, the peer-reviewed journal can also offer a review model in which selected peer reviewers are compensated to deliver high-quality and timely peer-review reports. In this paper, we consider a peer-reviewed journal in which the manuscript’s evaluation consists of a necessary peer review component and an optional speedy peer review component. We model and study that journal under two different scenarios to be compared: a paid peer-reviewing scenario that is considered as the benchmark; and a hybrid peer-review scenario where the manuscript’s author can decide whether to pay or not. In the benchmark scenario of paid peer-reviewing, the scholarly journal expects all authors to pay for the peer review and charges separately for the necessary and the optional speedy peer-review components. Alternatively, in a hybrid peer-review scenario, the peer-reviewed journal gives the option to the authors to not pay for the necessary peer review if they are not able to pay. This will determine an altruistic amplification of pay utility. However, the no-pay authors cannot avail of the optional speedy peer review, which determines a restriction-induced no-pay utility reduction. In this paper, we find that under the hybrid setting of compensated peer review where the author can decide whether to pay or not, the optimal price and review quality of the optional speedy peer review are always higher than under the benchmark scenario of paid peer-reviewing, due to the altruistic amplification of pay utility. Our results show that when the advantage of adopting the hybrid mode of compensated peer review is higher due to the higher difference between the altruistic author utility amplification and the restriction-induced no-pay utility reduction, the journal can increase its profitability by increasing the price for the necessary peer review above that in the benchmark scenario of paid peer review. A key insight from our results is the journal’s capability to increase the number of paying authors by giving the option to the authors to not pay for the necessary peer review if they are not able to pay. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Peer review | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Paid peer review | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Hybrid peer review | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Altruistic author | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Peer review theory | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Rodriguez-Sánchez, Rosa |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Fdez-Valdivia, J. |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Scientometrics |d Springer International Publishing, 1978 |g 127(2021), 3 vom: 31. Dez., Seite 1491-1514 |w (DE-627)13005352X |w (DE-600)435652-4 |w (DE-576)015591697 |x 0138-9130 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:127 |g year:2021 |g number:3 |g day:31 |g month:12 |g pages:1491-1514 |
| 856 | 4 | 1 | |u https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04248-8 |z lizenzpflichtig |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_OLC | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-BUB | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OLC-HSW | ||
| 912 | |a SSG-OPC-BBI | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_ILN_4012 | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 127 |j 2021 |e 3 |b 31 |c 12 |h 1491-1514 | ||
| author_variant |
j a g ja jag r r s rrs j f v jfv |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
article:01389130:2021----::aaadoefrereiweutialweteuhrad |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2021 |
| publishDate |
2021 |
| allfields |
10.1007/s11192-021-04248-8 doi (DE-627)OLC2078319457 (DE-He213)s11192-021-04248-8-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 050 370 VZ 11 ssgn García, J. A. verfasserin (orcid)0000-0001-7742-7270 aut Can a paid model for peer review be sustainable when the author can decide whether to pay or not? 2021 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2021 Abstract Given how hard it is to recruit good reviewers who are aligned with authors in their functions, journal editors could consider the use of better incentives, such as paying reviewers for their time. In order to facilitate a speedy turn-around when a rapid decision is required, the peer-reviewed journal can also offer a review model in which selected peer reviewers are compensated to deliver high-quality and timely peer-review reports. In this paper, we consider a peer-reviewed journal in which the manuscript’s evaluation consists of a necessary peer review component and an optional speedy peer review component. We model and study that journal under two different scenarios to be compared: a paid peer-reviewing scenario that is considered as the benchmark; and a hybrid peer-review scenario where the manuscript’s author can decide whether to pay or not. In the benchmark scenario of paid peer-reviewing, the scholarly journal expects all authors to pay for the peer review and charges separately for the necessary and the optional speedy peer-review components. Alternatively, in a hybrid peer-review scenario, the peer-reviewed journal gives the option to the authors to not pay for the necessary peer review if they are not able to pay. This will determine an altruistic amplification of pay utility. However, the no-pay authors cannot avail of the optional speedy peer review, which determines a restriction-induced no-pay utility reduction. In this paper, we find that under the hybrid setting of compensated peer review where the author can decide whether to pay or not, the optimal price and review quality of the optional speedy peer review are always higher than under the benchmark scenario of paid peer-reviewing, due to the altruistic amplification of pay utility. Our results show that when the advantage of adopting the hybrid mode of compensated peer review is higher due to the higher difference between the altruistic author utility amplification and the restriction-induced no-pay utility reduction, the journal can increase its profitability by increasing the price for the necessary peer review above that in the benchmark scenario of paid peer review. A key insight from our results is the journal’s capability to increase the number of paying authors by giving the option to the authors to not pay for the necessary peer review if they are not able to pay. Peer review Paid peer review Hybrid peer review Altruistic author Peer review theory Rodriguez-Sánchez, Rosa aut Fdez-Valdivia, J. aut Enthalten in Scientometrics Springer International Publishing, 1978 127(2021), 3 vom: 31. Dez., Seite 1491-1514 (DE-627)13005352X (DE-600)435652-4 (DE-576)015591697 0138-9130 nnns volume:127 year:2021 number:3 day:31 month:12 pages:1491-1514 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04248-8 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-BUB SSG-OLC-HSW SSG-OPC-BBI GBV_ILN_4012 AR 127 2021 3 31 12 1491-1514 |
| spelling |
10.1007/s11192-021-04248-8 doi (DE-627)OLC2078319457 (DE-He213)s11192-021-04248-8-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 050 370 VZ 11 ssgn García, J. A. verfasserin (orcid)0000-0001-7742-7270 aut Can a paid model for peer review be sustainable when the author can decide whether to pay or not? 2021 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2021 Abstract Given how hard it is to recruit good reviewers who are aligned with authors in their functions, journal editors could consider the use of better incentives, such as paying reviewers for their time. In order to facilitate a speedy turn-around when a rapid decision is required, the peer-reviewed journal can also offer a review model in which selected peer reviewers are compensated to deliver high-quality and timely peer-review reports. In this paper, we consider a peer-reviewed journal in which the manuscript’s evaluation consists of a necessary peer review component and an optional speedy peer review component. We model and study that journal under two different scenarios to be compared: a paid peer-reviewing scenario that is considered as the benchmark; and a hybrid peer-review scenario where the manuscript’s author can decide whether to pay or not. In the benchmark scenario of paid peer-reviewing, the scholarly journal expects all authors to pay for the peer review and charges separately for the necessary and the optional speedy peer-review components. Alternatively, in a hybrid peer-review scenario, the peer-reviewed journal gives the option to the authors to not pay for the necessary peer review if they are not able to pay. This will determine an altruistic amplification of pay utility. However, the no-pay authors cannot avail of the optional speedy peer review, which determines a restriction-induced no-pay utility reduction. In this paper, we find that under the hybrid setting of compensated peer review where the author can decide whether to pay or not, the optimal price and review quality of the optional speedy peer review are always higher than under the benchmark scenario of paid peer-reviewing, due to the altruistic amplification of pay utility. Our results show that when the advantage of adopting the hybrid mode of compensated peer review is higher due to the higher difference between the altruistic author utility amplification and the restriction-induced no-pay utility reduction, the journal can increase its profitability by increasing the price for the necessary peer review above that in the benchmark scenario of paid peer review. A key insight from our results is the journal’s capability to increase the number of paying authors by giving the option to the authors to not pay for the necessary peer review if they are not able to pay. Peer review Paid peer review Hybrid peer review Altruistic author Peer review theory Rodriguez-Sánchez, Rosa aut Fdez-Valdivia, J. aut Enthalten in Scientometrics Springer International Publishing, 1978 127(2021), 3 vom: 31. Dez., Seite 1491-1514 (DE-627)13005352X (DE-600)435652-4 (DE-576)015591697 0138-9130 nnns volume:127 year:2021 number:3 day:31 month:12 pages:1491-1514 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04248-8 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-BUB SSG-OLC-HSW SSG-OPC-BBI GBV_ILN_4012 AR 127 2021 3 31 12 1491-1514 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1007/s11192-021-04248-8 doi (DE-627)OLC2078319457 (DE-He213)s11192-021-04248-8-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 050 370 VZ 11 ssgn García, J. A. verfasserin (orcid)0000-0001-7742-7270 aut Can a paid model for peer review be sustainable when the author can decide whether to pay or not? 2021 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2021 Abstract Given how hard it is to recruit good reviewers who are aligned with authors in their functions, journal editors could consider the use of better incentives, such as paying reviewers for their time. In order to facilitate a speedy turn-around when a rapid decision is required, the peer-reviewed journal can also offer a review model in which selected peer reviewers are compensated to deliver high-quality and timely peer-review reports. In this paper, we consider a peer-reviewed journal in which the manuscript’s evaluation consists of a necessary peer review component and an optional speedy peer review component. We model and study that journal under two different scenarios to be compared: a paid peer-reviewing scenario that is considered as the benchmark; and a hybrid peer-review scenario where the manuscript’s author can decide whether to pay or not. In the benchmark scenario of paid peer-reviewing, the scholarly journal expects all authors to pay for the peer review and charges separately for the necessary and the optional speedy peer-review components. Alternatively, in a hybrid peer-review scenario, the peer-reviewed journal gives the option to the authors to not pay for the necessary peer review if they are not able to pay. This will determine an altruistic amplification of pay utility. However, the no-pay authors cannot avail of the optional speedy peer review, which determines a restriction-induced no-pay utility reduction. In this paper, we find that under the hybrid setting of compensated peer review where the author can decide whether to pay or not, the optimal price and review quality of the optional speedy peer review are always higher than under the benchmark scenario of paid peer-reviewing, due to the altruistic amplification of pay utility. Our results show that when the advantage of adopting the hybrid mode of compensated peer review is higher due to the higher difference between the altruistic author utility amplification and the restriction-induced no-pay utility reduction, the journal can increase its profitability by increasing the price for the necessary peer review above that in the benchmark scenario of paid peer review. A key insight from our results is the journal’s capability to increase the number of paying authors by giving the option to the authors to not pay for the necessary peer review if they are not able to pay. Peer review Paid peer review Hybrid peer review Altruistic author Peer review theory Rodriguez-Sánchez, Rosa aut Fdez-Valdivia, J. aut Enthalten in Scientometrics Springer International Publishing, 1978 127(2021), 3 vom: 31. Dez., Seite 1491-1514 (DE-627)13005352X (DE-600)435652-4 (DE-576)015591697 0138-9130 nnns volume:127 year:2021 number:3 day:31 month:12 pages:1491-1514 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04248-8 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-BUB SSG-OLC-HSW SSG-OPC-BBI GBV_ILN_4012 AR 127 2021 3 31 12 1491-1514 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1007/s11192-021-04248-8 doi (DE-627)OLC2078319457 (DE-He213)s11192-021-04248-8-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 050 370 VZ 11 ssgn García, J. A. verfasserin (orcid)0000-0001-7742-7270 aut Can a paid model for peer review be sustainable when the author can decide whether to pay or not? 2021 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2021 Abstract Given how hard it is to recruit good reviewers who are aligned with authors in their functions, journal editors could consider the use of better incentives, such as paying reviewers for their time. In order to facilitate a speedy turn-around when a rapid decision is required, the peer-reviewed journal can also offer a review model in which selected peer reviewers are compensated to deliver high-quality and timely peer-review reports. In this paper, we consider a peer-reviewed journal in which the manuscript’s evaluation consists of a necessary peer review component and an optional speedy peer review component. We model and study that journal under two different scenarios to be compared: a paid peer-reviewing scenario that is considered as the benchmark; and a hybrid peer-review scenario where the manuscript’s author can decide whether to pay or not. In the benchmark scenario of paid peer-reviewing, the scholarly journal expects all authors to pay for the peer review and charges separately for the necessary and the optional speedy peer-review components. Alternatively, in a hybrid peer-review scenario, the peer-reviewed journal gives the option to the authors to not pay for the necessary peer review if they are not able to pay. This will determine an altruistic amplification of pay utility. However, the no-pay authors cannot avail of the optional speedy peer review, which determines a restriction-induced no-pay utility reduction. In this paper, we find that under the hybrid setting of compensated peer review where the author can decide whether to pay or not, the optimal price and review quality of the optional speedy peer review are always higher than under the benchmark scenario of paid peer-reviewing, due to the altruistic amplification of pay utility. Our results show that when the advantage of adopting the hybrid mode of compensated peer review is higher due to the higher difference between the altruistic author utility amplification and the restriction-induced no-pay utility reduction, the journal can increase its profitability by increasing the price for the necessary peer review above that in the benchmark scenario of paid peer review. A key insight from our results is the journal’s capability to increase the number of paying authors by giving the option to the authors to not pay for the necessary peer review if they are not able to pay. Peer review Paid peer review Hybrid peer review Altruistic author Peer review theory Rodriguez-Sánchez, Rosa aut Fdez-Valdivia, J. aut Enthalten in Scientometrics Springer International Publishing, 1978 127(2021), 3 vom: 31. Dez., Seite 1491-1514 (DE-627)13005352X (DE-600)435652-4 (DE-576)015591697 0138-9130 nnns volume:127 year:2021 number:3 day:31 month:12 pages:1491-1514 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04248-8 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-BUB SSG-OLC-HSW SSG-OPC-BBI GBV_ILN_4012 AR 127 2021 3 31 12 1491-1514 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1007/s11192-021-04248-8 doi (DE-627)OLC2078319457 (DE-He213)s11192-021-04248-8-p DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng 050 370 VZ 11 ssgn García, J. A. verfasserin (orcid)0000-0001-7742-7270 aut Can a paid model for peer review be sustainable when the author can decide whether to pay or not? 2021 Text txt rdacontent ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen n rdamedia Band nc rdacarrier © The Author(s) 2021 Abstract Given how hard it is to recruit good reviewers who are aligned with authors in their functions, journal editors could consider the use of better incentives, such as paying reviewers for their time. In order to facilitate a speedy turn-around when a rapid decision is required, the peer-reviewed journal can also offer a review model in which selected peer reviewers are compensated to deliver high-quality and timely peer-review reports. In this paper, we consider a peer-reviewed journal in which the manuscript’s evaluation consists of a necessary peer review component and an optional speedy peer review component. We model and study that journal under two different scenarios to be compared: a paid peer-reviewing scenario that is considered as the benchmark; and a hybrid peer-review scenario where the manuscript’s author can decide whether to pay or not. In the benchmark scenario of paid peer-reviewing, the scholarly journal expects all authors to pay for the peer review and charges separately for the necessary and the optional speedy peer-review components. Alternatively, in a hybrid peer-review scenario, the peer-reviewed journal gives the option to the authors to not pay for the necessary peer review if they are not able to pay. This will determine an altruistic amplification of pay utility. However, the no-pay authors cannot avail of the optional speedy peer review, which determines a restriction-induced no-pay utility reduction. In this paper, we find that under the hybrid setting of compensated peer review where the author can decide whether to pay or not, the optimal price and review quality of the optional speedy peer review are always higher than under the benchmark scenario of paid peer-reviewing, due to the altruistic amplification of pay utility. Our results show that when the advantage of adopting the hybrid mode of compensated peer review is higher due to the higher difference between the altruistic author utility amplification and the restriction-induced no-pay utility reduction, the journal can increase its profitability by increasing the price for the necessary peer review above that in the benchmark scenario of paid peer review. A key insight from our results is the journal’s capability to increase the number of paying authors by giving the option to the authors to not pay for the necessary peer review if they are not able to pay. Peer review Paid peer review Hybrid peer review Altruistic author Peer review theory Rodriguez-Sánchez, Rosa aut Fdez-Valdivia, J. aut Enthalten in Scientometrics Springer International Publishing, 1978 127(2021), 3 vom: 31. Dez., Seite 1491-1514 (DE-627)13005352X (DE-600)435652-4 (DE-576)015591697 0138-9130 nnns volume:127 year:2021 number:3 day:31 month:12 pages:1491-1514 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04248-8 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-BUB SSG-OLC-HSW SSG-OPC-BBI GBV_ILN_4012 AR 127 2021 3 31 12 1491-1514 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in Scientometrics 127(2021), 3 vom: 31. Dez., Seite 1491-1514 volume:127 year:2021 number:3 day:31 month:12 pages:1491-1514 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in Scientometrics 127(2021), 3 vom: 31. Dez., Seite 1491-1514 volume:127 year:2021 number:3 day:31 month:12 pages:1491-1514 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Peer review Paid peer review Hybrid peer review Altruistic author Peer review theory |
| dewey-raw |
050 |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
Scientometrics |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
García, J. A. @@aut@@ Rodriguez-Sánchez, Rosa @@aut@@ Fdez-Valdivia, J. @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2021-12-31T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
13005352X |
| dewey-sort |
250 |
| id |
OLC2078319457 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">OLC2078319457</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230506001949.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">tu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">221220s2021 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s11192-021-04248-8</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)OLC2078319457</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-He213)s11192-021-04248-8-p</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">050</subfield><subfield code="a">370</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">11</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">García, J. A.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="0">(orcid)0000-0001-7742-7270</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Can a paid model for peer review be sustainable when the author can decide whether to pay or not?</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen</subfield><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Band</subfield><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© The Author(s) 2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract Given how hard it is to recruit good reviewers who are aligned with authors in their functions, journal editors could consider the use of better incentives, such as paying reviewers for their time. In order to facilitate a speedy turn-around when a rapid decision is required, the peer-reviewed journal can also offer a review model in which selected peer reviewers are compensated to deliver high-quality and timely peer-review reports. In this paper, we consider a peer-reviewed journal in which the manuscript’s evaluation consists of a necessary peer review component and an optional speedy peer review component. We model and study that journal under two different scenarios to be compared: a paid peer-reviewing scenario that is considered as the benchmark; and a hybrid peer-review scenario where the manuscript’s author can decide whether to pay or not. In the benchmark scenario of paid peer-reviewing, the scholarly journal expects all authors to pay for the peer review and charges separately for the necessary and the optional speedy peer-review components. Alternatively, in a hybrid peer-review scenario, the peer-reviewed journal gives the option to the authors to not pay for the necessary peer review if they are not able to pay. This will determine an altruistic amplification of pay utility. However, the no-pay authors cannot avail of the optional speedy peer review, which determines a restriction-induced no-pay utility reduction. In this paper, we find that under the hybrid setting of compensated peer review where the author can decide whether to pay or not, the optimal price and review quality of the optional speedy peer review are always higher than under the benchmark scenario of paid peer-reviewing, due to the altruistic amplification of pay utility. Our results show that when the advantage of adopting the hybrid mode of compensated peer review is higher due to the higher difference between the altruistic author utility amplification and the restriction-induced no-pay utility reduction, the journal can increase its profitability by increasing the price for the necessary peer review above that in the benchmark scenario of paid peer review. A key insight from our results is the journal’s capability to increase the number of paying authors by giving the option to the authors to not pay for the necessary peer review if they are not able to pay.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Peer review</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Paid peer review</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Hybrid peer review</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Altruistic author</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Peer review theory</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Rodriguez-Sánchez, Rosa</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Fdez-Valdivia, J.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Scientometrics</subfield><subfield code="d">Springer International Publishing, 1978</subfield><subfield code="g">127(2021), 3 vom: 31. Dez., Seite 1491-1514</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)13005352X</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)435652-4</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)015591697</subfield><subfield code="x">0138-9130</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:127</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2021</subfield><subfield code="g">number:3</subfield><subfield code="g">day:31</subfield><subfield code="g">month:12</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:1491-1514</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="1"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04248-8</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_OLC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-BUB</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-HSW</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OPC-BBI</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">127</subfield><subfield code="j">2021</subfield><subfield code="e">3</subfield><subfield code="b">31</subfield><subfield code="c">12</subfield><subfield code="h">1491-1514</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
García, J. A. |
| spellingShingle |
García, J. A. ddc 050 ssgn 11 misc Peer review misc Paid peer review misc Hybrid peer review misc Altruistic author misc Peer review theory Can a paid model for peer review be sustainable when the author can decide whether to pay or not? |
| authorStr |
García, J. A. |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)13005352X |
| format |
Article |
| dewey-ones |
050 - General serial publications 370 - Education |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut aut aut |
| collection |
OLC |
| remote_str |
false |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| issn |
0138-9130 |
| topic_title |
050 370 VZ 11 ssgn Can a paid model for peer review be sustainable when the author can decide whether to pay or not? Peer review Paid peer review Hybrid peer review Altruistic author Peer review theory |
| topic |
ddc 050 ssgn 11 misc Peer review misc Paid peer review misc Hybrid peer review misc Altruistic author misc Peer review theory |
| topic_unstemmed |
ddc 050 ssgn 11 misc Peer review misc Paid peer review misc Hybrid peer review misc Altruistic author misc Peer review theory |
| topic_browse |
ddc 050 ssgn 11 misc Peer review misc Paid peer review misc Hybrid peer review misc Altruistic author misc Peer review theory |
| format_facet |
Aufsätze Gedruckte Aufsätze |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
nc |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Scientometrics |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
13005352X |
| dewey-tens |
050 - Magazines, journals & serials 370 - Education |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Scientometrics |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)13005352X (DE-600)435652-4 (DE-576)015591697 |
| title |
Can a paid model for peer review be sustainable when the author can decide whether to pay or not? |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)OLC2078319457 (DE-He213)s11192-021-04248-8-p |
| title_full |
Can a paid model for peer review be sustainable when the author can decide whether to pay or not? |
| author_sort |
García, J. A. |
| journal |
Scientometrics |
| journalStr |
Scientometrics |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| dewey-hundreds |
000 - Computer science, information & general works 300 - Social sciences |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2021 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| container_start_page |
1491 |
| author_browse |
García, J. A. Rodriguez-Sánchez, Rosa Fdez-Valdivia, J. |
| container_volume |
127 |
| class |
050 370 VZ 11 ssgn |
| format_se |
Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
García, J. A. |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1007/s11192-021-04248-8 |
| normlink |
(ORCID)0000-0001-7742-7270 |
| normlink_prefix_str_mv |
(orcid)0000-0001-7742-7270 |
| dewey-full |
050 370 |
| title_sort |
can a paid model for peer review be sustainable when the author can decide whether to pay or not? |
| title_auth |
Can a paid model for peer review be sustainable when the author can decide whether to pay or not? |
| abstract |
Abstract Given how hard it is to recruit good reviewers who are aligned with authors in their functions, journal editors could consider the use of better incentives, such as paying reviewers for their time. In order to facilitate a speedy turn-around when a rapid decision is required, the peer-reviewed journal can also offer a review model in which selected peer reviewers are compensated to deliver high-quality and timely peer-review reports. In this paper, we consider a peer-reviewed journal in which the manuscript’s evaluation consists of a necessary peer review component and an optional speedy peer review component. We model and study that journal under two different scenarios to be compared: a paid peer-reviewing scenario that is considered as the benchmark; and a hybrid peer-review scenario where the manuscript’s author can decide whether to pay or not. In the benchmark scenario of paid peer-reviewing, the scholarly journal expects all authors to pay for the peer review and charges separately for the necessary and the optional speedy peer-review components. Alternatively, in a hybrid peer-review scenario, the peer-reviewed journal gives the option to the authors to not pay for the necessary peer review if they are not able to pay. This will determine an altruistic amplification of pay utility. However, the no-pay authors cannot avail of the optional speedy peer review, which determines a restriction-induced no-pay utility reduction. In this paper, we find that under the hybrid setting of compensated peer review where the author can decide whether to pay or not, the optimal price and review quality of the optional speedy peer review are always higher than under the benchmark scenario of paid peer-reviewing, due to the altruistic amplification of pay utility. Our results show that when the advantage of adopting the hybrid mode of compensated peer review is higher due to the higher difference between the altruistic author utility amplification and the restriction-induced no-pay utility reduction, the journal can increase its profitability by increasing the price for the necessary peer review above that in the benchmark scenario of paid peer review. A key insight from our results is the journal’s capability to increase the number of paying authors by giving the option to the authors to not pay for the necessary peer review if they are not able to pay. © The Author(s) 2021 |
| abstractGer |
Abstract Given how hard it is to recruit good reviewers who are aligned with authors in their functions, journal editors could consider the use of better incentives, such as paying reviewers for their time. In order to facilitate a speedy turn-around when a rapid decision is required, the peer-reviewed journal can also offer a review model in which selected peer reviewers are compensated to deliver high-quality and timely peer-review reports. In this paper, we consider a peer-reviewed journal in which the manuscript’s evaluation consists of a necessary peer review component and an optional speedy peer review component. We model and study that journal under two different scenarios to be compared: a paid peer-reviewing scenario that is considered as the benchmark; and a hybrid peer-review scenario where the manuscript’s author can decide whether to pay or not. In the benchmark scenario of paid peer-reviewing, the scholarly journal expects all authors to pay for the peer review and charges separately for the necessary and the optional speedy peer-review components. Alternatively, in a hybrid peer-review scenario, the peer-reviewed journal gives the option to the authors to not pay for the necessary peer review if they are not able to pay. This will determine an altruistic amplification of pay utility. However, the no-pay authors cannot avail of the optional speedy peer review, which determines a restriction-induced no-pay utility reduction. In this paper, we find that under the hybrid setting of compensated peer review where the author can decide whether to pay or not, the optimal price and review quality of the optional speedy peer review are always higher than under the benchmark scenario of paid peer-reviewing, due to the altruistic amplification of pay utility. Our results show that when the advantage of adopting the hybrid mode of compensated peer review is higher due to the higher difference between the altruistic author utility amplification and the restriction-induced no-pay utility reduction, the journal can increase its profitability by increasing the price for the necessary peer review above that in the benchmark scenario of paid peer review. A key insight from our results is the journal’s capability to increase the number of paying authors by giving the option to the authors to not pay for the necessary peer review if they are not able to pay. © The Author(s) 2021 |
| abstract_unstemmed |
Abstract Given how hard it is to recruit good reviewers who are aligned with authors in their functions, journal editors could consider the use of better incentives, such as paying reviewers for their time. In order to facilitate a speedy turn-around when a rapid decision is required, the peer-reviewed journal can also offer a review model in which selected peer reviewers are compensated to deliver high-quality and timely peer-review reports. In this paper, we consider a peer-reviewed journal in which the manuscript’s evaluation consists of a necessary peer review component and an optional speedy peer review component. We model and study that journal under two different scenarios to be compared: a paid peer-reviewing scenario that is considered as the benchmark; and a hybrid peer-review scenario where the manuscript’s author can decide whether to pay or not. In the benchmark scenario of paid peer-reviewing, the scholarly journal expects all authors to pay for the peer review and charges separately for the necessary and the optional speedy peer-review components. Alternatively, in a hybrid peer-review scenario, the peer-reviewed journal gives the option to the authors to not pay for the necessary peer review if they are not able to pay. This will determine an altruistic amplification of pay utility. However, the no-pay authors cannot avail of the optional speedy peer review, which determines a restriction-induced no-pay utility reduction. In this paper, we find that under the hybrid setting of compensated peer review where the author can decide whether to pay or not, the optimal price and review quality of the optional speedy peer review are always higher than under the benchmark scenario of paid peer-reviewing, due to the altruistic amplification of pay utility. Our results show that when the advantage of adopting the hybrid mode of compensated peer review is higher due to the higher difference between the altruistic author utility amplification and the restriction-induced no-pay utility reduction, the journal can increase its profitability by increasing the price for the necessary peer review above that in the benchmark scenario of paid peer review. A key insight from our results is the journal’s capability to increase the number of paying authors by giving the option to the authors to not pay for the necessary peer review if they are not able to pay. © The Author(s) 2021 |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_OLC SSG-OLC-BUB SSG-OLC-HSW SSG-OPC-BBI GBV_ILN_4012 |
| container_issue |
3 |
| title_short |
Can a paid model for peer review be sustainable when the author can decide whether to pay or not? |
| url |
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04248-8 |
| remote_bool |
false |
| author2 |
Rodriguez-Sánchez, Rosa Fdez-Valdivia, J. |
| author2Str |
Rodriguez-Sánchez, Rosa Fdez-Valdivia, J. |
| ppnlink |
13005352X |
| mediatype_str_mv |
n |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.1007/s11192-021-04248-8 |
| up_date |
2024-07-03T19:52:32.268Z |
| _version_ |
1803588838116818944 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">OLC2078319457</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230506001949.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">tu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">221220s2021 xx ||||| 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s11192-021-04248-8</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)OLC2078319457</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-He213)s11192-021-04248-8-p</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="082" ind1="0" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">050</subfield><subfield code="a">370</subfield><subfield code="q">VZ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="084" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">11</subfield><subfield code="2">ssgn</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">García, J. A.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="0">(orcid)0000-0001-7742-7270</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Can a paid model for peer review be sustainable when the author can decide whether to pay or not?</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">ohne Hilfsmittel zu benutzen</subfield><subfield code="b">n</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Band</subfield><subfield code="b">nc</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="500" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">© The Author(s) 2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract Given how hard it is to recruit good reviewers who are aligned with authors in their functions, journal editors could consider the use of better incentives, such as paying reviewers for their time. In order to facilitate a speedy turn-around when a rapid decision is required, the peer-reviewed journal can also offer a review model in which selected peer reviewers are compensated to deliver high-quality and timely peer-review reports. In this paper, we consider a peer-reviewed journal in which the manuscript’s evaluation consists of a necessary peer review component and an optional speedy peer review component. We model and study that journal under two different scenarios to be compared: a paid peer-reviewing scenario that is considered as the benchmark; and a hybrid peer-review scenario where the manuscript’s author can decide whether to pay or not. In the benchmark scenario of paid peer-reviewing, the scholarly journal expects all authors to pay for the peer review and charges separately for the necessary and the optional speedy peer-review components. Alternatively, in a hybrid peer-review scenario, the peer-reviewed journal gives the option to the authors to not pay for the necessary peer review if they are not able to pay. This will determine an altruistic amplification of pay utility. However, the no-pay authors cannot avail of the optional speedy peer review, which determines a restriction-induced no-pay utility reduction. In this paper, we find that under the hybrid setting of compensated peer review where the author can decide whether to pay or not, the optimal price and review quality of the optional speedy peer review are always higher than under the benchmark scenario of paid peer-reviewing, due to the altruistic amplification of pay utility. Our results show that when the advantage of adopting the hybrid mode of compensated peer review is higher due to the higher difference between the altruistic author utility amplification and the restriction-induced no-pay utility reduction, the journal can increase its profitability by increasing the price for the necessary peer review above that in the benchmark scenario of paid peer review. A key insight from our results is the journal’s capability to increase the number of paying authors by giving the option to the authors to not pay for the necessary peer review if they are not able to pay.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Peer review</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Paid peer review</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Hybrid peer review</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Altruistic author</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Peer review theory</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Rodriguez-Sánchez, Rosa</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Fdez-Valdivia, J.</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Scientometrics</subfield><subfield code="d">Springer International Publishing, 1978</subfield><subfield code="g">127(2021), 3 vom: 31. Dez., Seite 1491-1514</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)13005352X</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)435652-4</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-576)015591697</subfield><subfield code="x">0138-9130</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:127</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2021</subfield><subfield code="g">number:3</subfield><subfield code="g">day:31</subfield><subfield code="g">month:12</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:1491-1514</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="1"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04248-8</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_OLC</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-BUB</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OLC-HSW</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SSG-OPC-BBI</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">127</subfield><subfield code="j">2021</subfield><subfield code="e">3</subfield><subfield code="b">31</subfield><subfield code="c">12</subfield><subfield code="h">1491-1514</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.399891 |