According to this article, "A biology journal that paid peer reviewers found that the approach cut the time to a first editorial decision by 85% and maintained high-quality reviews." This shows the danger of depending (or even reporting) on a single study. I have no doubt quality would decline over time as people got used to being paid. Turn-around time, meanwhile, would drop as reviewers tried to maximize income. The review process itself needs rethinking, not how it's paid for.
Today: Total: [Direct link] [Share]
