Attached is a recent editorial from Nature, describing a new journal that plans to pay independent scientists in cryptocurrency for completing peer reviews for this journal. Any GEITP’ers are welcome to share their thoughts on this proposal. I have very mixed emotions about “getting paid.” It used to be “an honor” to be invited to review a manuscript. When I first set up my lab and was “invited to review a manuscript” — my thoughts were “Wow. I have finally arrived.”
Same with grant proposals or being invited to join a study section. Of course, as the years wear on, reviewing all these manuscripts and grant proposals — “can feel like a real time-consuming drag on one’s valuable time.” IMHO, getting paid to do this — cheapens everything about science… But, in today’s hectic pace, perhaps getting paid is not such a bad idea?
Where I would definitely draw the line, however is: “Users can also tip each other for good work or pay others to complete research-related tasks, such as generating data for a review” ☹
—DwN
Nature 11 Dec 2024; https://www-nature-com.uc.idm.oclc.org/articles/d41586-024-04027-4
COMMENTS:
From: Anonymous
Sent: Thursday, January 9, 2025 4:35 AM
Like you, I have always considered the review process an honor.
“Science” is not a commodity. The ability to rationally evaluate a scientific opus is a learned and highly polished profession. But professionals are not always equal.
Sadly, especially contemporarily — integrity, trust, and even professionalism can no longer be taken for granted.
COMMENT:
I was also excited to be asked to review a paper at first, Dan, but the luster came off quickly. Nevertheless, I did a lot in that I considered this part of my job—same for teaching & grant reviewing. Sort of need that for promotions, too. My work as a reviewer led to appointments as an editorial board member & then to several associate editor roles, the last at JBC (16 yr).
Most journals actually do give Assoc Editors & Editors-in-Chief an honorarium, in light of the work load. I won’t say how much for any journal, & I don’t think it works out to a high pay per hour. At that level, I probably spent at least an hour a day, every day for JBC. One year I handled over 600 papers. As I have told people, I would not take the job for the money but I would do that for free.
I am not keen to give out small amounts of money to reviewers. I don’t think it would help find reviewers & the $/hour isn’t that great. Maybe for a guy from Brazil it is. If you really want more money, try consulting, which has its plusses and minuses (I won’t go into that).
Happy new year.
COMMENT:
Once again, some billionaire tech-bro is trying to re-make part of the world in the image that will garner him the most gain (it’s his cryptocurrency company). We should label this for what it is, to wit: 1) a STUPID idea; 2) a solution to a non-existing problem; 3) a scam to make money off of hard-working, but sometimes naive scientists; and 4) further evidence that Nature, long one of the very best scientific journals, is losing its way.
Why pay with a new (i.e. fake) cryptocurrency? Or with any cryptocurrency at all? If you want to ‘pay’ someone for goods or services, it is essential that the payment be valid (issued by a central bank or government), fluid (useable by the recipient to pay for other goods/services), and readily exchangeable (you know, like via the shyster currency exchange guys at international airports).
Between 1990 and 2010 I reviewed an average of ~25 manuscripts and 10 grants per year; I guess this effort averaged about 5 hours per manuscript and about 10-15 hours per grant, so maybe 250 hours/year. What was that worth? A small number of foreign granting agencies paid (in USD); I perhaps made $5K total over the whole time, and I never was paid for reviewing a manuscript. Yes, like most of us, I felt I should have been paid, especially for reviewing sloppy manuscripts that are barely first drafts, but I learned to confine my reviewing to established journals and to say ‘No, thank you’ to “The Journal of Unnecessary Reports” and its ilk.
The modern Western world tries to put a price tag on everything. If we really want to pay people with expertise to review papers and grants, then pay real money (Dollars, Euros, or Yen) at a real rate ($100/h for starters).
COMMENT:
Well, in response to “GEITP’ers are welcome to share their thoughts on this proposal,” there was a flurry of answers, the overwhelming answer of which was “BAD IDEA.” Below are three responses stripped and pasted. Another six at least thought similarly: “Peer-reviewing should be viewed as an honor, not as a chore. The reviewer is being recognized in his/her field, and money should not be given to cheapen this process.”
—DwN