Gasparyan Armen Yuri, Gerasimov Alexey N, Voronov Alexander A, Kitas George D
Departments of Rheumatology and Research & Development, Dudley Group NHS Foundation Trust (Teaching Trust of University of Birmingham, UK), Russells Hall Hospital, Dudley, West Midlands, UK.
Department of Statistics and Econometrics, Stavropol State Agrarian University, Stavropol, Russian Federation.
J Korean Med Sci. 2015 Apr;30(4):360-4. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2015.30.4.360. Epub 2015 Mar 19.
This article overviews currently available options for rewarding peer reviewers. Rewards and incentives may help maintain the quality and integrity of scholarly publications. Publishers around the world implemented a variety of financial and nonfinancial mechanisms for incentivizing their best reviewers. None of these is proved effective on its own. A strategy of combined rewards and credits for the reviewers1 creative contributions seems a workable solution. Opening access to reviews and assigning publication credits to the best reviews is one of the latest achievements of digitization. Reviews, posted on academic networking platforms, such as Publons, add to the transparency of the whole system of peer review. Reviewer credits, properly counted and displayed on individual digital profiles, help distinguish the best contributors, invite them to review and offer responsible editorial posts.
本文概述了目前可供选择的奖励同行评审员的方式。奖励和激励措施可能有助于维持学术出版物的质量和诚信。世界各地的出版商实施了各种财务和非财务机制来激励他们最优秀的评审员。但这些措施单独来看都未被证明有效。对评审员的创造性贡献采用奖励和积分相结合的策略似乎是一个可行的解决方案。开放评审的获取渠道并将发表积分授予最佳评审是数字化的最新成果之一。发布在学术网络平台(如Publons)上的评审增加了同行评审整个系统的透明度。评审员积分经过妥善计算并显示在个人数字档案中,有助于区分最佳贡献者,邀请他们进行评审并提供负责任的编辑职位。