Free for Service: The Inadequate Incentives for Quality Peer Review
- 268 Downloads
“No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money,” Samuel Johnson said. On the other hand, according to the Thomson Reuters’ Journal Citation Reports®, journals published a total of 11,291 orthopaedic articles in 2010, and most of the authors, we can safely assume, were neither blockheads nor paid for the piece.
Was Johnson wrong? Not necessarily. One could make the argument that authors were paid indirectly. Publication can lead to grant support or prompt a bonus from an academic department. Beyond that, there are nonpecuniary rewards, such as recognition in the media or, more valuably, earning the esteem of one’s colleagues.
Even with those examples in mind, Johnson’s larger point — that writing requires incentives — still holds true. Therefore, it is reasonable to ask whether the incentives for academic writing are calibrated correctly. If the rewards are too meager, we face a deficit. If the rewards are too great, excesses abound.
There are data to suggest a surplus of academic...
KeywordsContinue Medical Education Journal Citation Report Peer Review Process Open Access Journal Academic Writing
- 3.De Gregory J. Medical journals start granting CME credit for peer review. Science Editor. 2004;27:190–191.Google Scholar
- 4.European Respiratory Journal. CME in the ERJ. Available at: http://erj.ersjournals.com/site/misc/cmeinfo.xhtml. Accessed: July 1, 2013.
- 12.The JAMA Network. Announcement: CME for peer reviewers. Arch Neurol. 2009;66:857.Google Scholar