A billion-dollar donation: estimating the cost of researchers’ time spent on peer review

Research Integrity and Peer Review 6 (1) (2021)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

BackgroundThe amount and value of researchers’ peer review work is critical for academia and journal publishing. However, this labor is under-recognized, its magnitude is unknown, and alternative ways of organizing peer review labor are rarely considered.MethodsUsing publicly available data, we provide an estimate of researchers’ time and the salary-based contribution to the journal peer review system.ResultsWe found that the total time reviewers globally worked on peer reviews was over 100 million hours in 2020, equivalent to over 15 thousand years. The estimated monetary value of the time US-based reviewers spent on reviews was over 1.5 billion USD in 2020. For China-based reviewers, the estimate is over 600 million USD, and for UK-based, close to 400 million USD.ConclusionsBy design, our results are very likely to be under-estimates as they reflect only a portion of the total number of journals worldwide. The numbers highlight the enormous amount of work and time that researchers provide to the publication system, and the importance of considering alternative ways of structuring, and paying for, peer review. We foster this process by discussing some alternative models that aim to boost the benefits of peer review, thus improving its cost-benefit ratio.

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,672

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Epilogue: New Drugs for Neglected Diseases.Thomas Pogge & Aidan Hollis - 2011 - Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 20 (2):329-334.
Biotechnology and the Utilitarian Argument for Patents.Michele Svatos - 1996 - Social Philosophy and Policy 13 (2):113.
The Ups and Downs of Peer Review: Making Funding Choices for Science.Franz A. Foltz - 2000 - Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society 20 (6):427-440.
A Method for Improving the Integrity of Peer Review.Mehdi Dadkhah, Mohsen Kahani & Glenn Borchardt - 2018 - Science and Engineering Ethics 24 (5):1603-1610.
Peer review: Selecting the best science. [REVIEW]Wendy Baldwin & Belinda Seto - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):11-17.
Advances in peer review research: an introduction.Arthur E. Stamps Iii - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):3-10.
Cost Effectiveness Analysis and Fairness.F. M. Kamm - 2015 - Journal of Practical Ethics 3 (1):1-14.
Improving the peer review of narrative literature reviews.Jennifer A. Byrne - 2016 - Research Integrity and Peer Review 1 (1).
Using a dialectical scientific brief in peer review.Arthur Stamps - 1997 - Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (1):85-98.

Analytics

Added to PP
2021-11-15

Downloads
7 (#1,381,358)

6 months
4 (#775,606)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Add more references