Advertisement

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

, Volume 471, Issue 10, pp 3093–3097 | Cite as

Free for Service: The Inadequate Incentives for Quality Peer Review

  • Joseph BernsteinEmail author
Not the Last Word

“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...

Keywords

Continue Medical Education Journal Citation Report Peer Review Process Open Access Journal Academic Writing 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 1.
    Benos DJ, Bashari E, Chaves JM, Gaggar A, Kapoor N, LaFrance M, et al. The ups and downs of peer review. Adv Physiol Educ. 2007;31:145–152.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chan AW, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, Laupacis A, Gøtzsche PC, Krleža-Jerić K, et al. SPIRIT 2013 statement: Defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158:200–207.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    De Gregory J. Medical journals start granting CME credit for peer review. Science Editor. 2004;27:190–191.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    European Respiratory Journal. CME in the ERJ. Available at: http://erj.ersjournals.com/site/misc/cmeinfo.xhtml. Accessed: July 1, 2013.
  5. 5.
    Gura T. Peer review unmasked. Nature. 2002;416:258–260.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Horton R. Genetically modified food: consternation, confusion, and crack-up. MJA. 2000;172:148–149.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jefferson T, Alderson P, Wagner E, Davidoff F. Effects of editorial peer review: a systematic review. JAMA. 2002;287:2784–2786.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kachewar SG. Sankaye SB. Reviewer index: A new proposal of rewarding the reviewer. Mens Sana Monographs. 2013;11:274–284.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kumar MN. The peer reviewer as collaborator’s model for publishing. Learned Publishing. 2010;23:17–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Rennie D, Flanagin A, Godlee F, Groves T. Seventh international congress on peer review and biomedical publication - call for research. JAMA. 2012;307:726–727.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Squazzoni F, Bravo G, Takacs K. Does incentive provision increase the quality of peer review? An experimental study. Research Policy. 2013;42:287–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    The JAMA Network. Announcement: CME for peer reviewers. Arch Neurol. 2009;66:857.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons® 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Orthopaedic SurgeryUniversity of PennsylvaniaPhiladelphiaUSA

Personalised recommendations