Charity is welcome: The international benefits and pitfalls of peer Review

, , , ,
1 Lead co-ordinator, Open Knowledge Foundation, Scotland, Open Knowledge, Glasgow, United Kingdom
2 University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
3 Lady Hardinge Medical College, New Delhi, India
4 Department of Medicine, LN Medical College, Bhopal, India
5 Department of Community Medicine, University College of Medical Sciences, Delhi, New Delhi, Delhi NCR, India
DOI
10.7287/peerj.preprints.1585v2
Published
Accepted
Subject Areas
Public Health, Ethical Issues, Science and Medical Education, Science Policy
Keywords
publishing, peer review, ethics, academic research, incentives in research, open access, citizen authors, research autonomy, journal editing
Copyright
© 2016 Steel et al.
Licence
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. For attribution, the original author(s), title, publication source (PeerJ PrePrints) and either DOI or URL of the article must be cited.
Cite this article
Steel G, Price A, Seth B, Biswas R, Chatterjee P. 2016. Charity is welcome: The international benefits and pitfalls of peer Review. PeerJ PrePrints 4:e1585v2

Abstract

Peer review is the traditional method for validating academic work and this process is not without complications. Debates about the way peer reviewing is accomplished, the hazy but sensational world of retractions and the costs of publishing for authors are taking center stage. In no other field do people conceive and build the work, pay for it, inspect it, distribute it and buy it back again for their continued survival. Still after all this investment they can struggle for rights of access. In order to stem the tide of discontent, incentives for peer reviewers were introduced. The authors investigate the many faceted approaches to incentivize the process of peer review and consider what value they add, if any. The authors explore other avenues to benefit the largely anonymous and uncredited work of peer reviewers who remain the sentinels of the world of published evidence.

Author Comment

The paper was rewritten and now includes extensive real life examples and a more optimistic view on the future of peer review. It adds in some challenges we face for the future of open access beyond that of considering monetary incentives.