Author:
LeBlanc Allana G.,Barnes Joel D.,Saunders Travis J.,Tremblay Mark S.,Chaput Jean-Philippe
Abstract
Abstract
Background
There are a variety of costs associated with publication of scientific findings. The purpose of this work was to estimate the cost of peer review in scientific publishing per reviewer, per year and for the entire scientific community.
Methods
Internet-based self-report, cross-sectional survey, live between June 28, 2021 and August 2, 2021 was used. Participants were recruited via snowball sampling. No restrictions were placed on geographic location or field of study. Respondents who were asked to act as a peer-reviewer for at least one manuscript submitted to a scientific journal in 2020 were eligible. The primary outcome measure was the cost of peer review per person, per year (calculated as wage-cost x number of initial reviews and number of re-reviews per year). The secondary outcome was the cost of peer review globally (calculated as the number of peer-reviewed papers in Scopus x median wage-cost of initial review and re-review).
Results
A total of 354 participants completed at least one question of the survey, and information necessary to calculate the cost of peer-review was available for 308 participants from 33 countries (44% from Canada). The cost of peer review was estimated at $US1,272 per person, per year ($US1,015 for initial review and $US256 for re-review), or US$1.1–1.7 billion for the scientific community per year. The global cost of peer-review was estimated at US$6 billion in 2020 when relying on the Dimensions database and taking into account reviewed-but-rejected manuscripts.
Conclusions
Peer review represents an important financial piece of scientific publishing. Our results may not represent all countries or fields of study, but are consistent with previous estimates and provide additional context from peer reviewers themselves. Researchers and scientists have long provided peer review as a contribution to the scientific community. Recognizing the importance of peer-review, institutions should acknowledge these costs in job descriptions, performance measurement, promotion packages, and funding applications. Journals should develop methods to compensate reviewers for their time and improve transparency while maintaining the integrity of the peer-review process.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
General Earth and Planetary Sciences,General Environmental Science
Reference25 articles.
1. Swoger B. The (mostly true) origins of the scientific journal. Scientific America; 2012. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/information-culture/the-mostly-true-origins-of-the-scientific-journal/?redirect=1. Accessed 31 Aug 2021.
2. LeBlanc AG, Barnes JD, Saunders TJ, Tremblay MS, Chaput J-P. Scientific sinkhole: the pernicious price of formatting. PLoS One. 2019;14(9):e0223116. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0223116.
3. Peer review. Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary, Merriam-Webster. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/peer%20review. Accessed 1 Sept 2021.
4. Napolitani F, Petrini C, Garattini S. Ethics of reviewing scientific publications. Eur J Intern Med. 2017;20:22–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejim.2016.12.011.
5. Heard SB. Can we stop saying reviewers are unpaid?. Scientist Sees Squirrel; 2017. https://scientistseessquirrel.wordpress.com/2017/08/22/can-we-stop-saying-reviewers-are-unpaid/.