IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/scient/v127y2022i3d10.1007_s11192-021-04248-8.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Can a paid model for peer review be sustainable when the author can decide whether to pay or not?

Author

Listed:
  • J. A. García

    (Universidad de Granada)

  • Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez

    (Universidad de Granada)

  • J. Fdez-Valdivia

    (Universidad de Granada)

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.

Suggested Citation

  • J. A. García & Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez & J. Fdez-Valdivia, 2022. "Can a paid model for peer review be sustainable when the author can decide whether to pay or not?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(3), pages 1491-1514, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:127:y:2022:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-021-04248-8
    DOI: 10.1007/s11192-021-04248-8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11192-021-04248-8
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s11192-021-04248-8?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gary D. Thompson & Satheesh V. Aradhyula & George Frisvold & Russell Tronstad, 2010. "Does Paying Referees Expedite Reviews? Results of a Natural Experiment," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 76(3), pages 678-692, January.
    2. Daniel S. Hamermesh, 1994. "Facts and Myths about Refereeing," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 153-163, Winter.
    3. Janine Huisman & Jeroen Smits, 2017. "Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author’s perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 633-650, October.
    4. J. A. Garcia & Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez & J. Fdez-Valdivia, 2020. "The author–reviewer game," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(3), pages 2409-2431, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. García, J.A. & Montero-Parodi, J.J. & Rodriguez-Sánchez, Rosa & Fdez-Valdivia, J., 2023. "How to motivate a reviewer with a present bias to work harder," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(4).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Janine Huisman & Jeroen Smits, 2017. "Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author’s perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(1), pages 633-650, October.
    2. Sergio Copiello, 2018. "On the money value of peer review," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 613-620, April.
    3. Zaharie, Monica Aniela & Osoian, Codruţa Luminiţa, 2016. "Peer review motivation frames: A qualitative approach," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 69-79.
    4. Louis de Mesnard, 2014. "On the marketization of the academic review process. (VF) Sur la marchandisation du processus de referee des revues académiques," Working Papers CREGO 1141001, Université de Bourgogne - CREGO EA7317 Centre de recherches en gestion des organisations.
    5. García, J.A. & Montero-Parodi, J.J. & Rodriguez-Sánchez, Rosa & Fdez-Valdivia, J., 2023. "How to motivate a reviewer with a present bias to work harder," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 17(4).
    6. J. A. Garcia & Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez & J. Fdez-Valdivia, 2021. "The editor-manuscript game," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(5), pages 4277-4295, May.
    7. Monica Aniela Zaharie & Marco Seeber, 2018. "Are non-monetary rewards effective in attracting peer reviewers? A natural experiment," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(3), pages 1587-1609, December.
    8. Amanda H Goodall, 2005. "Should Research Universities be Led by Top Researchers? Part 1: Are they?," HEW 0506003, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Hugo S. Gonçalves & Sérgio Moro, 2023. "On the economic impacts of COVID‐19: A text mining literature analysis," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(1), pages 375-394, February.
    10. J. A. Garcia & Rosa Rodriguez-Sánchez & J. Fdez-Valdivia, 2021. "The interplay between the reviewer’s incentives and the journal’s quality standard," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(4), pages 3041-3061, April.
    11. Cloos, Janis & Greiff, Matthias & Rusch, Hannes, 2020. "Geographical Concentration and Editorial Favoritism within the Field of Laboratory Experimental Economics (RM/19/029-revised-)," Research Memorandum 014, Maastricht University, Graduate School of Business and Economics (GSBE).
    12. Ivana Drvenica & Giangiacomo Bravo & Lucija Vejmelka & Aleksandar Dekanski & Olgica Nedić, 2018. "Peer Review of Reviewers: The Author’s Perspective," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-10, December.
    13. Marcel Knöchelmann, 2019. "Open Science in the Humanities, or: Open Humanities?," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-17, November.
    14. Jac C. Heckelman, 2017. "Tullock on the organization of scientific inquiry," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 28(1), pages 1-17, March.
    15. Bruno Frey, 2005. "Problems with Publishing: Existing State and Solutions," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 173-190, April.
    16. Michael C Grant & Luke Geoghegan & Marc Arbyn & Zakaria Mohammed & Luke McGuinness & Emily L Clarke & Ryckie G Wade, 2020. "The prevalence of symptoms in 24,410 adults infected by the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2; COVID-19): A systematic review and meta-analysis of 148 studies from 9 countries," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-19, June.
    17. David J. Pannell, 2002. "Prose, Psychopaths and Persistence: Personal Perspectives on Publishing," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 50(2), pages 101-115, July.
    18. Adams, Renée B. & Ferreira, Daniel, 2008. "Do directors perform for pay?," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 154-171, September.
    19. Ofer H. Azar, 2006. "The Academic Review Process: How Can We Make it More Efficient?," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 50(1), pages 37-50, March.
    20. Besancenot, Damien & Vranceanu, Radu, 2008. "Can incentives for research harm research? A business schools' tale," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 1248-1265, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:scient:v:127:y:2022:i:3:d:10.1007_s11192-021-04248-8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.