Abstract
There seems to be reluctance amongst scientists to invest some of their own time in the peer-review of manuscripts. As a result, journal editors often struggle to secure reviewers for a given manuscript in a timely manner. Here, two simple principles are proposed, which could fairly allocate the contribution of individual researchers to the peer-review process.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Beall J. (2014). List of Predatory Publishers 2014 [Online]. Available: http://scholarlyoa.com/2014/01/02/list-of-predatory-publishers-2014/.
Kubke F. (2012). What I learned as an Academic Editor for PLoS One [Online]. Available: http://blogs.plos.org/mindthebrain/2012/10/17/what-i-learned-as-an-academic-editor-for-plos-one/.
Acknowledgments
I thank Dr Benjamin Albert (Liggins Institute, University of Auckland) for his very insightful comments and peer-review of this manuscript.
Conflict of interest
The author has no financial conflicts of interest to disclose, except that he is in the editorial board of a scientific journal.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Derraik, J.G.B. The Principles of Fair Allocation of Peer-Review: How Much Should a Researcher be Expected to Contribute?. Sci Eng Ethics 21, 825–828 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9584-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-014-9584-2