Peer review is considered the last, great, closed part of the research life cycle. But what is the inspiration for professionals to spend their time and talent? This interesting topic came to us from The Scholarly Kitchen in their article, “Credit for Peer Review: What is it Worth?”
The two common suggestions heard from researchers are: 1) peer review should be explicitly included in the job requirements of researchers, or 2) peer reviewers should be paid for their service. Many argue that peer review is part of the job of being a researcher, and if you’re earning a salary, then you’re already being paid for these activities.
The ways reviewers currently receive recognition varies from journal to journal. Many researcher contracts include vague requirements for service but don’t specifically define what that means.
ORCID’s vision is for all who participate in research, scholarship, and innovation be uniquely identified and connected with their contributions and affiliations across disciplines, borders, and time.
However, this feels like they are still arguing about who and how, instead of worth and value.
Melody K. Smith
Sponsored by Access Innovations, the world leader in taxonomies, metadata, and semantic enrichment to make your content findable.