Scholarlink

<p>Peer review is the cornerstone of scholarly publishing, ensuring the quality and credibility of academic research. As Article Processing Charges (APC) continue to rise, many journals provide only symbolic rewards to reviewers, such as certificates of appreciation and/or minimal discount vouchers, raising ethical concerns about fairness and the marginalization of scholarly labour. This commentary explores the disparity between the financial gains of journals and the no compensation for reviewers, who are crucial to maintaining research standards. It questions whether the current model appropriately recognizes the&#xa0;reviewer’s contributions and advocates for actual compensation structures, including financial rewards, substantial reductions in APC, and professional recognition. Additionally, the article highlights the impact of these inequities on early-career researchers and scholars from less affluent regions, suggesting that equitable compensation could improve the sustainability and efficiency of the peer review process. By addressing these ethical concerns, scholarly publishing can better support the essential work of reviewers while fostering a more just and inclusive scholarly environment.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Remembering the Reviewers

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年9月19日

查看全文
  • Fawad Javed,
  • Zain Uddin Ahmed

摘要

Peer review is the cornerstone of scholarly publishing, ensuring the quality and credibility of academic research. As Article Processing Charges (APC) continue to rise, many journals provide only symbolic rewards to reviewers, such as certificates of appreciation and/or minimal discount vouchers, raising ethical concerns about fairness and the marginalization of scholarly labour. This commentary explores the disparity between the financial gains of journals and the no compensation for reviewers, who are crucial to maintaining research standards. It questions whether the current model appropriately recognizes the reviewer’s contributions and advocates for actual compensation structures, including financial rewards, substantial reductions in APC, and professional recognition. Additionally, the article highlights the impact of these inequities on early-career researchers and scholars from less affluent regions, suggesting that equitable compensation could improve the sustainability and efficiency of the peer review process. By addressing these ethical concerns, scholarly publishing can better support the essential work of reviewers while fostering a more just and inclusive scholarly environment.