Payment and progress in peer review

Those paying for peer review could formalise this important function and insist that certain conditions are met before payment. Editors and publishers could insist on a tight timeline to avoid delays that are an irritating feature of the peer review process; they could also insist on greater consistency and professionalism in the format, objectivity, and comprehensiveness of the review.3,4 These recommendations might substantially speed up the process and enhance the quality of peer review. With the move to open access publishing, substantial page charges are increasingly incurred by authors. Payment for peer review might theoretically increase those costs, but the burden should be borne by publishers who have availed of the peer review process to generate noteworthy profits.5 These profits are largely at the expense of authors and researchers, peer reviewers, and editors, who contribute considerable time and intellectual input to the process, with no rare payment or honoraria. Finally, formal support for peer review by universities is long overdue. Academics ought to be expected to contribute to the peer review and be held accountable when not doing so.6 University grant income and research assessments are supported by the peer review process, but the implications of this and its valuable role in academia and scholarship are not sufficiently recognised by the university sector.

Automated summary

Those paying for peer review could ensure the conditions of the review are met, and editors and publishers should demand tighter timelines and more consistency and professionalism in the review process. Universities should provide formal support for peer review, and academics should be expected to contribute and be held accountable.