For decades, peer review has been considered the gold standard process for making decisions on whether a research paper should or should not be published in a scholarly journal. Since the 1970s, scientific articles, including the world’s greatest scientific advances, have undergone peer review before publication, meaning that manuscripts are reviewed by experts who have not participated in the research. Reviewers make recommendations on publishing and can also suggest authors make changes to their original text to meet certain quality standards.
While peer review has done a lot for science and is a crucial component influencing trust in academic research, it’s not a flawless process. The process takes time, as each manuscript is usually assessed by two or more peer reviewers, delaying the publication of research results. And it can be challenging to find qualified reviewers, who are typically volunteers with limited time. This leaves many researchers wondering, what can be done to improve the peer review process?
A new paper published in Critical Care Medicine is contributing to the discussions around this hot topic in academia. David Maslove (Medicine) and Christopher Cotton (Economics) ran an experimental, quasi-randomized controlled trial to test whether paying reviewers increased the willingness of experts to serve as reviewers, as well as the quality and timeliness of reviews. The project received support from the New Frontiers in Research Fund, a federal program supporting Canadian-led interdisciplinary, transformative research.
The Gazette spoke to Drs. Maslove and Cotton to learn about the study results and what they may mean for the scholarly editorial processes. The interview has been edited for clarity and length.