Pro-Peer
@pro-peer.com
Professional peer review. Let's help each other by properly valuing each other's time and a job well done. Take our brief survey & sign up to get paid, here: https://forms.gle/sfstxNwZTD3CFsSAA
Pinned
Pro-Peer
@pro-peer.com
· Apr 7
A spate of research findings offer fresh evidence to the debate about whether peer reviewers should be paid for their time and expertise — a fraught topic that has provoked discussion among researchers
https://go.nature.com/3QVhFc6
https://go.nature.com/3QVhFc6
Publishers trial paying peer reviewers — what did they find?
Two journals embarked on efforts to compensate reviewers, with different results.
go.nature.com
It's only "fraught" if you have a vested interest in keeping your cost base low and to maintain your extractive business model @nature.com
First movers will find they win a competitive advantage: a good job done fast, rather than making authors & editors wait an age for useless free opinions.
First movers will find they win a competitive advantage: a good job done fast, rather than making authors & editors wait an age for useless free opinions.
When a predator like @mdpiopenaccess.bsky.social or @springernature.com tries to take a bite out of you by getting a piece of your expertise for free, the best thing to do is show your teeth: demand payment & do a good job.
Alternatively, don't engage at all.
Alternatively, don't engage at all.
What can we do?
First, think twice before sending your work to a for-profit publisher.
Second, IGNORE ALL REQUESTS from these publishers. Do not subsidise their business model.
Third, tell your boss to tell her boss. Change happens when the funders take action.
First, think twice before sending your work to a for-profit publisher.
Second, IGNORE ALL REQUESTS from these publishers. Do not subsidise their business model.
Third, tell your boss to tell her boss. Change happens when the funders take action.
June 16, 2025 at 1:27 PM
When a predator like @mdpiopenaccess.bsky.social or @springernature.com tries to take a bite out of you by getting a piece of your expertise for free, the best thing to do is show your teeth: demand payment & do a good job.
Alternatively, don't engage at all.
Alternatively, don't engage at all.
Great advice from @natureportfolio.nature.com
"Ask the one question that will clarify everything: how much?"
Expertise is worth paying for!
doi.org/10.1038/d415...
"Ask the one question that will clarify everything: how much?"
Expertise is worth paying for!
doi.org/10.1038/d415...
Your time is valuable. Don’t give it away just for ‘exposure’
Academia relies on unpaid labour — but researchers should think carefully about what kind of work they’re willing to give to for-profit organizations for free, says Dritjon Gruda.
doi.org
June 6, 2025 at 7:23 PM
Great advice from @natureportfolio.nature.com
"Ask the one question that will clarify everything: how much?"
Expertise is worth paying for!
doi.org/10.1038/d415...
"Ask the one question that will clarify everything: how much?"
Expertise is worth paying for!
doi.org/10.1038/d415...
So pleased that @natureportfolio.nature.com agrees that "unpaid work should be the exception, not the rule."
Looking forward to you putting your money where your mouth is and paying your expert reviewers.
doi.org/10.1038/d415...
Looking forward to you putting your money where your mouth is and paying your expert reviewers.
doi.org/10.1038/d415...
Your time is valuable. Don’t give it away just for ‘exposure’
Academia relies on unpaid labour — but researchers should think carefully about what kind of work they’re willing to give to for-profit organizations for free, says Dritjon Gruda.
doi.org
June 6, 2025 at 3:14 PM
So pleased that @natureportfolio.nature.com agrees that "unpaid work should be the exception, not the rule."
Looking forward to you putting your money where your mouth is and paying your expert reviewers.
doi.org/10.1038/d415...
Looking forward to you putting your money where your mouth is and paying your expert reviewers.
doi.org/10.1038/d415...
Peer reviewers have an outsized influence on what gets published, and can make all sorts of requests for changes, yet are not usually required to declare conflicts of interest, which are common and substantial.
Professionals declare conflicts and/or recuse themselves.
doi.org/10.1001/jama...
Professionals declare conflicts and/or recuse themselves.
doi.org/10.1001/jama...
Payments by Drug and Medical Device Manufacturers to US Peer Reviewers of Major Medical Journals
This study characterizes payments by drug and medical device manufacturers to US peer reviewers of major medical journals.
doi.org
May 20, 2025 at 11:06 AM
Peer reviewers have an outsized influence on what gets published, and can make all sorts of requests for changes, yet are not usually required to declare conflicts of interest, which are common and substantial.
Professionals declare conflicts and/or recuse themselves.
doi.org/10.1001/jama...
Professionals declare conflicts and/or recuse themselves.
doi.org/10.1001/jama...
Reposted by Pro-Peer
Then what's our job? I've thought long and hard about that question.
This would be clever if it weren't accidental.
That's literally your job. To think long and hard about things that matter, as a human being.
This would be clever if it weren't accidental.
That's literally your job. To think long and hard about things that matter, as a human being.
April 9, 2025 at 7:10 PM
Then what's our job? I've thought long and hard about that question.
This would be clever if it weren't accidental.
That's literally your job. To think long and hard about things that matter, as a human being.
This would be clever if it weren't accidental.
That's literally your job. To think long and hard about things that matter, as a human being.
Reposted by Pro-Peer
The tokens (aka customer retention) and so called rewards like certificates to be added to a CV are outright insulting. I refuse to accept any of those glass beads for the gold I have on offer. We should redirect the immense money publishing houses make for their shareholders to science.
April 9, 2025 at 6:24 AM
The tokens (aka customer retention) and so called rewards like certificates to be added to a CV are outright insulting. I refuse to accept any of those glass beads for the gold I have on offer. We should redirect the immense money publishing houses make for their shareholders to science.
Hmmm... I wonder what else could motivate people to do work... 🤔
Coupons 🎫? Certificates 📜? Ribbons (hey, it worked for Napoleon's soldiers) 🎀? Hugs and good feels 🥰?
How about cash money 💶? The kind you can pay rent and buy groceries with. With normal conditions of "do a good job or no payola".
Coupons 🎫? Certificates 📜? Ribbons (hey, it worked for Napoleon's soldiers) 🎀? Hugs and good feels 🥰?
How about cash money 💶? The kind you can pay rent and buy groceries with. With normal conditions of "do a good job or no payola".
I am trying to find 2 reviewers for a paper on camera traps and predator-prey interactions. 16 invitations sent, 6 declined, the rest are ghosting me, and we're 60 days into submission. Is it that Peer community in Ecology is asking to review? We might be deserving the mess we find ourselves in.
April 8, 2025 at 7:20 AM
Hmmm... I wonder what else could motivate people to do work... 🤔
Coupons 🎫? Certificates 📜? Ribbons (hey, it worked for Napoleon's soldiers) 🎀? Hugs and good feels 🥰?
How about cash money 💶? The kind you can pay rent and buy groceries with. With normal conditions of "do a good job or no payola".
Coupons 🎫? Certificates 📜? Ribbons (hey, it worked for Napoleon's soldiers) 🎀? Hugs and good feels 🥰?
How about cash money 💶? The kind you can pay rent and buy groceries with. With normal conditions of "do a good job or no payola".
It's only "fraught" if you have a vested interest in keeping your cost base low and to maintain your extractive business model @nature.com
First movers will find they win a competitive advantage: a good job done fast, rather than making authors & editors wait an age for useless free opinions.
First movers will find they win a competitive advantage: a good job done fast, rather than making authors & editors wait an age for useless free opinions.
A spate of research findings offer fresh evidence to the debate about whether peer reviewers should be paid for their time and expertise — a fraught topic that has provoked discussion among researchers
https://go.nature.com/3QVhFc6
https://go.nature.com/3QVhFc6
Publishers trial paying peer reviewers — what did they find?
Two journals embarked on efforts to compensate reviewers, with different results.
go.nature.com
April 7, 2025 at 3:06 PM
It's only "fraught" if you have a vested interest in keeping your cost base low and to maintain your extractive business model @nature.com
First movers will find they win a competitive advantage: a good job done fast, rather than making authors & editors wait an age for useless free opinions.
First movers will find they win a competitive advantage: a good job done fast, rather than making authors & editors wait an age for useless free opinions.
Reposted by Pro-Peer
Maybe it's time to admit that goodwill and moral obligation aren't a sustainable foundation for peer review—the very system that shapes careers and defines scientific credibility. It's encouraging to see alternative models finally being explored. @biologyopen.bsky.social @peerj.bsky.social
A spate of research findings offer fresh evidence to the debate about whether peer reviewers should be paid for their time and expertise — a fraught topic that has provoked discussion among researchers
https://go.nature.com/3QVhFc6
https://go.nature.com/3QVhFc6
Publishers trial paying peer reviewers — what did they find?
Two journals embarked on efforts to compensate reviewers, with different results.
go.nature.com
April 2, 2025 at 8:22 AM
Maybe it's time to admit that goodwill and moral obligation aren't a sustainable foundation for peer review—the very system that shapes careers and defines scientific credibility. It's encouraging to see alternative models finally being explored. @biologyopen.bsky.social @peerj.bsky.social
Reposted by Pro-Peer
March 27, 2025 at 10:52 AM
Reposted by Pro-Peer
Peer review in 7 days?
We tested it. It works.
Read the data, join the mission:
Preprint → bit.ly/4iZ30st
FAQ + reviewer application → bit.ly/fastandfair
@biologists.bsky.social @biologyopen.bsky.social
We tested it. It works.
Read the data, join the mission:
Preprint → bit.ly/4iZ30st
FAQ + reviewer application → bit.ly/fastandfair
@biologists.bsky.social @biologyopen.bsky.social
stanley from south park says we can do this in a cartoon
ALT: stanley from south park says we can do this in a cartoon
media.tenor.com
March 27, 2025 at 9:41 AM
Peer review in 7 days?
We tested it. It works.
Read the data, join the mission:
Preprint → bit.ly/4iZ30st
FAQ + reviewer application → bit.ly/fastandfair
@biologists.bsky.social @biologyopen.bsky.social
We tested it. It works.
Read the data, join the mission:
Preprint → bit.ly/4iZ30st
FAQ + reviewer application → bit.ly/fastandfair
@biologists.bsky.social @biologyopen.bsky.social
Reviewers are tired of receiving no reward for practising their core expertise.
Publishers (including @plos.org) are reluctant to increase their costs, but offering a premium service will improve their reputation. @biologists.bsky.social found <7d turnaround and high quality for paid reviews.
Publishers (including @plos.org) are reluctant to increase their costs, but offering a premium service will improve their reputation. @biologists.bsky.social found <7d turnaround and high quality for paid reviews.
The term "reviewer fatigue” has become familiar in scientific publishing. In this Editorial, @droutledge.bsky.social & @npariente.bsky.social discuss how we can make the peer review system more sustainable & ways that PLOS Biology is already helping to ease the burden on reviewers🧪
▶️ plos.io/41YKIRa
▶️ plos.io/41YKIRa
On improving the sustainability of peer review
The term “reviewer fatigue” has become only too familiar in scientific publishing. This editorial discusses how we can ease the burden on reviewers to make the peer review system more sustainable, whi...
plos.io
March 27, 2025 at 10:23 AM
Reviewers are tired of receiving no reward for practising their core expertise.
Publishers (including @plos.org) are reluctant to increase their costs, but offering a premium service will improve their reputation. @biologists.bsky.social found <7d turnaround and high quality for paid reviews.
Publishers (including @plos.org) are reluctant to increase their costs, but offering a premium service will improve their reputation. @biologists.bsky.social found <7d turnaround and high quality for paid reviews.
Reposted by Pro-Peer
The term "reviewer fatigue” has become familiar in scientific publishing. In this Editorial, @droutledge.bsky.social & @npariente.bsky.social discuss how we can make the peer review system more sustainable & ways that PLOS Biology is already helping to ease the burden on reviewers🧪
▶️ plos.io/41YKIRa
▶️ plos.io/41YKIRa
On improving the sustainability of peer review
The term “reviewer fatigue” has become only too familiar in scientific publishing. This editorial discusses how we can ease the burden on reviewers to make the peer review system more sustainable, whi...
plos.io
March 27, 2025 at 9:17 AM
The term "reviewer fatigue” has become familiar in scientific publishing. In this Editorial, @droutledge.bsky.social & @npariente.bsky.social discuss how we can make the peer review system more sustainable & ways that PLOS Biology is already helping to ease the burden on reviewers🧪
▶️ plos.io/41YKIRa
▶️ plos.io/41YKIRa
*without an offer of payment for services rendered
March 25, 2025 at 9:22 PM
*without an offer of payment for services rendered
Reposted by Pro-Peer
This is such exciting news! You can apply to become a reviewer.
We are excited to be launching the next phase of our Fast & Fair peer review initiative: offering high-quality peer review within 7 working days. #fastandfairpeerreview
Read the Editorial by EiC Daniel Gorelick @danielgorelick.bsky.social at: bit.ly/4kYD1mL
Read the Editorial by EiC Daniel Gorelick @danielgorelick.bsky.social at: bit.ly/4kYD1mL
March 25, 2025 at 2:27 PM
This is such exciting news! You can apply to become a reviewer.
Reposted by Pro-Peer
FROM A NICHE TO A MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR BUSINESS: Academic #publishing is a multibillion-dollar industry. It’s not always good for #science theconversation.com/academic-pub... via @us.theconversation.com #ResearchIntegrity
Academic publishing is a multibillion-dollar industry. It’s not always good for science
Some academic publishers have been accused by scientists of being “too greedy” and prioritising profit over research integrity.
theconversation.com
March 25, 2025 at 2:25 PM
FROM A NICHE TO A MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR BUSINESS: Academic #publishing is a multibillion-dollar industry. It’s not always good for #science theconversation.com/academic-pub... via @us.theconversation.com #ResearchIntegrity
Reposted by Pro-Peer
Very excited for Fast & Fair peer review - authors get decisions, with reviews, within 7 business days of submission. Reviews are high quality - lots of quality control by our academic editors, plus we pay reviewers.
We are excited to be launching the next phase of our Fast & Fair peer review initiative: offering high-quality peer review within 7 working days. #fastandfairpeerreview
Read the Editorial by EiC Daniel Gorelick @danielgorelick.bsky.social at: bit.ly/4kYD1mL
Read the Editorial by EiC Daniel Gorelick @danielgorelick.bsky.social at: bit.ly/4kYD1mL
March 25, 2025 at 11:25 AM
Very excited for Fast & Fair peer review - authors get decisions, with reviews, within 7 business days of submission. Reviews are high quality - lots of quality control by our academic editors, plus we pay reviewers.
Reposted by Pro-Peer
Review quality also maintained because rejection rate was similar among Fast & Fair vs conventional peer review...and Biology Open now publish all reviews, so readers can see for themselves
Can peer review be sped up ?
All manuscripts from a pilot study received reviews & first decisions within 7 business days.
The mean turnaround was 4.6 business days (n=20 manuscripts).
Review quality was maintained according to the academic editors.
www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1...
All manuscripts from a pilot study received reviews & first decisions within 7 business days.
The mean turnaround was 4.6 business days (n=20 manuscripts).
Review quality was maintained according to the academic editors.
www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1...
Fast & Fair peer review: a pilot study demonstrating feasibility of rapid, high-quality peer review in a biology journal
Traditional peer review is slow, often delayed by the time-consuming process of identifying reviewers and lengthy review turnaround times. This study tests the feasibility of the Fast & Fair peer revi...
www.biorxiv.org
March 25, 2025 at 1:38 PM
Review quality also maintained because rejection rate was similar among Fast & Fair vs conventional peer review...and Biology Open now publish all reviews, so readers can see for themselves
Reposted by Pro-Peer
We are excited to be launching the next phase of our Fast & Fair peer review initiative: offering high-quality peer review within 7 working days. #fastandfairpeerreview
Read the Editorial by EiC Daniel Gorelick @danielgorelick.bsky.social at: bit.ly/4kYD1mL
Read the Editorial by EiC Daniel Gorelick @danielgorelick.bsky.social at: bit.ly/4kYD1mL
March 25, 2025 at 11:21 AM
We are excited to be launching the next phase of our Fast & Fair peer review initiative: offering high-quality peer review within 7 working days. #fastandfairpeerreview
Read the Editorial by EiC Daniel Gorelick @danielgorelick.bsky.social at: bit.ly/4kYD1mL
Read the Editorial by EiC Daniel Gorelick @danielgorelick.bsky.social at: bit.ly/4kYD1mL
Reposted by Pro-Peer
Can peer review be sped up ?
All manuscripts from a pilot study received reviews & first decisions within 7 business days.
The mean turnaround was 4.6 business days (n=20 manuscripts).
Review quality was maintained according to the academic editors.
www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1...
All manuscripts from a pilot study received reviews & first decisions within 7 business days.
The mean turnaround was 4.6 business days (n=20 manuscripts).
Review quality was maintained according to the academic editors.
www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1...
Fast & Fair peer review: a pilot study demonstrating feasibility of rapid, high-quality peer review in a biology journal
Traditional peer review is slow, often delayed by the time-consuming process of identifying reviewers and lengthy review turnaround times. This study tests the feasibility of the Fast & Fair peer revi...
www.biorxiv.org
March 25, 2025 at 1:26 PM
Can peer review be sped up ?
All manuscripts from a pilot study received reviews & first decisions within 7 business days.
The mean turnaround was 4.6 business days (n=20 manuscripts).
Review quality was maintained according to the academic editors.
www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1...
All manuscripts from a pilot study received reviews & first decisions within 7 business days.
The mean turnaround was 4.6 business days (n=20 manuscripts).
Review quality was maintained according to the academic editors.
www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1...
We believe that this is the way to make it work.
Providing an expert opinion is usually associated with payment, which may be voluntarily foregone in case of charity work done pro bono.
For-profit publishers aren't charities and should expect to pay for expert opinions.
Providing an expert opinion is usually associated with payment, which may be voluntarily foregone in case of charity work done pro bono.
For-profit publishers aren't charities and should expect to pay for expert opinions.
Fast & Fair peer review with pre-contracted paid reviewers.
Many (including me) have been skeptical, but is this a way to really make it work? www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1...
Many (including me) have been skeptical, but is this a way to really make it work? www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1...
www.biorxiv.org
March 25, 2025 at 1:13 PM
We believe that this is the way to make it work.
Providing an expert opinion is usually associated with payment, which may be voluntarily foregone in case of charity work done pro bono.
For-profit publishers aren't charities and should expect to pay for expert opinions.
Providing an expert opinion is usually associated with payment, which may be voluntarily foregone in case of charity work done pro bono.
For-profit publishers aren't charities and should expect to pay for expert opinions.
Want to access a diverse range of people to review?
Try offering payment. You could reach people:
- for whom $200 is a LOT of money
- with the right skills and bonafides but outside academia
- who are keen to do a good job and will come back for more
Try offering payment. You could reach people:
- for whom $200 is a LOT of money
- with the right skills and bonafides but outside academia
- who are keen to do a good job and will come back for more
March 24, 2025 at 10:54 AM
Want to access a diverse range of people to review?
Try offering payment. You could reach people:
- for whom $200 is a LOT of money
- with the right skills and bonafides but outside academia
- who are keen to do a good job and will come back for more
Try offering payment. You could reach people:
- for whom $200 is a LOT of money
- with the right skills and bonafides but outside academia
- who are keen to do a good job and will come back for more
Latest careers briefing from @nature.com recommends:
"To avoid taking on uncompensated labour, it’s important to get everything in writing before starting any work"
That's exactly what we advise when for-profit publishers try to get your expert opinion for free.
doi.org/10.1038/d415...
"To avoid taking on uncompensated labour, it’s important to get everything in writing before starting any work"
That's exactly what we advise when for-profit publishers try to get your expert opinion for free.
doi.org/10.1038/d415...
I spent two years organizing an international conference. How do I get compensated for my work?
It can be hard to say no to service requests in academia. Nature’s Careers team sought advice on how to ensure researchers don’t get stuck doing unpaid labour.
doi.org
March 21, 2025 at 5:51 PM
Latest careers briefing from @nature.com recommends:
"To avoid taking on uncompensated labour, it’s important to get everything in writing before starting any work"
That's exactly what we advise when for-profit publishers try to get your expert opinion for free.
doi.org/10.1038/d415...
"To avoid taking on uncompensated labour, it’s important to get everything in writing before starting any work"
That's exactly what we advise when for-profit publishers try to get your expert opinion for free.
doi.org/10.1038/d415...
It's important to recognise when you are doing voluntary work for a non-profit that's working in your interest.
When a for-profit wants you to do work that furthers their interest (with no consideration of yours), it's normal to expect payment of a professional fee.
www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/...
When a for-profit wants you to do work that furthers their interest (with no consideration of yours), it's normal to expect payment of a professional fee.
www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/...
February 6, 2025 at 6:46 AM
It's important to recognise when you are doing voluntary work for a non-profit that's working in your interest.
When a for-profit wants you to do work that furthers their interest (with no consideration of yours), it's normal to expect payment of a professional fee.
www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/...
When a for-profit wants you to do work that furthers their interest (with no consideration of yours), it's normal to expect payment of a professional fee.
www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/...
Reposted by Pro-Peer
Every day I get requests from folks to look at suspicious papers, to ask for help with suspicious PIs and dishonest labs - so many emails, so much work 😢
It is hard to say no, but there are so many bad papers and labs!
But I cannot possibly take on anymore work. What should I do?
It is hard to say no, but there are so many bad papers and labs!
But I cannot possibly take on anymore work. What should I do?
January 6, 2025 at 6:23 AM
Every day I get requests from folks to look at suspicious papers, to ask for help with suspicious PIs and dishonest labs - so many emails, so much work 😢
It is hard to say no, but there are so many bad papers and labs!
But I cannot possibly take on anymore work. What should I do?
It is hard to say no, but there are so many bad papers and labs!
But I cannot possibly take on anymore work. What should I do?