![At a Glance bug causing weather sync issues, forecast delays on Pixel [U]](https://i0.wp.com/9to5google.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/4/2024/03/At-a-Glance-v1.jpg?resize=1200%2C628&quality=82&strip=all&ssl=1)
Publishers Trial Paying Peer Reviewers - What Did They Find?
Two scientific journals that experimented with paying peer reviewers found the practice sped up the review process without compromising quality, according to findings published this month. Critical Care Medicine offered $250 to half of 715 invited reviewers, with 53% accepting compared to 48% of unpaid reviewers. Paid reviews were completed one day faster on average. In a more dramatic result, Biology Open saw reviews completed in 4.6 business days when paying reviewers $284 per review, versus 38 days for unpaid reviews. "For the editors it has been extremely helpful because, prior to this, in some areas it was very difficult to secure reviewers," said Alejandra Clark, managing editor of Biology Open. Read more of this story at Slashdot.
Two scientific journals that experimented with paying peer reviewers found the practice sped up the review process without compromising quality, according to findings published this month.
Critical Care Medicine offered $250 to half of 715 invited reviewers, with 53% accepting compared to 48% of unpaid reviewers. Paid reviews were completed one day faster on average. In a more dramatic result, Biology Open saw reviews completed in 4.6 business days when paying reviewers $284 per review, versus 38 days for unpaid reviews. "For the editors it has been extremely helpful because, prior to this, in some areas it was very difficult to secure reviewers," said Alejandra Clark, managing editor of Biology Open.
Read more of this story at Slashdot.
