Of late I have noticed a sea change in the publishing model of research articles. Most of the publishing houses and journals are adopting the pay and publish Open Access model. Earlier payment was looked down upon and it was thought if your article lacked quality, you published by paying money. But things have changed rapidly in the past 5 years. More and more journals are becoming Open Access and payment by the authors have become a norm (1).
I have also observed the reviewers are slow to act; they send their opinions across after prodding and pleading. Every editor knows how difficult it is to make the reviewers submit their comments in time. Sometimes it takes months. Their reluctance to review for a journal is not caused by professional ineptitude but by lack of payment. If the journals are taking money for publication then the editors can pay, whatever small the amount may be, to the reviewers. Silver tonic always works in getting things done. Money can be an incentive for the reviewers and the reluctance and lethargy to review can go. This can also be a pathway to generate more income by the reviewers (2,3). The process of review actually takes a long time now and mars the spirit of the scientists who submitted their articles for review. I suggest the journal editors think of paying their reviewers for speedy publication (3). Many scientists prefer a journal for faster publication process. As you increase the speed of publication, the journal profits by attracting more authors and revenue generation in the end.
Reference
2. Open access pay-for-review option — ethical question. Nature 590, 36 (2021)
No comments:
Post a Comment