Skip to main content

Rewarding reviewers

A few weeks ago, I received a mail from ACS Publications with the following message:

Learn about other ways that the ACS is Now Open:
New programs including expanded ACS AuthorChoice, ACS Author Rewards, and an upcoming open access journal, ACS Central Science.
 It is especially the second item that caught my attention (ACS Author Rewards). As it says on the ACS Open Access website:
Encouraging ACS authors to choose open access with a $60-million stimulus program
  • With ACS Author Rewards, ACS provides publishing credits directly to each Corresponding Author of each article published in 2014.
  • ACS awards publishing credits, worth a total value of $1,500 per article published in 2014; there are no limits on the number of credits an author can earn
  • Authors use credits to fund any ACS open access publishing option within the next three years (2015-2017); credits are transferable to another author
  • Program designed to help research authors transition to new open access publishing models
  • With an estimated 40,000 or more articles to be published in ACS journals in 2014, this stimulus provides the research community with $60 million or more in savings, fueling participation in open access at ACS
I tweeted about it:
#lt, it would be even better if it would be followed up by a #refereerewards system @ACS
12/03/2014 18:00 

Which was followed up by many people, e.g. by @stephengdavey (an Editor for Nature Chemistryor @JakeYeston. My argument is as follows:

Given that at the moment reviewers are not rewarded for their work, it would be reasonable for publishers to propose some kind of reward system. This might be credits that can be used to publish papers in Open Access, or as I argued in the past, credits for buying books (given that publishers often have both journal and book sections).

Clearly I see some problems arising, since ideally these credits would be stored centrally in some kind of clearing house (similar to the European Central Bank). But in the end these credits will be equivalent to money, and so creating such a central clearing house would be quite difficult. Moreover, even though I may have credits at e.g. Nature, it does not mean I will be able to publish there. Still, I think that within one publisher's house (NPG, ACS, RCS, Wiley, Elsevier, Springer, ...), it would be possible to setup internally such a credit system. Indeed, ACS has already done so (but as far as I'm concerned, rewarding the wrong group of people, i.e. authors instead of reviewers).

Moreover, recently I also received an invitation to review for PeerJ, which has already such a system in place:

As an indication of our gratitude, any reviewer who submits their review on time is provided with a Coupon entitling them to an entirely free publication with PeerJ (see details at the bottom of this email).
Well done PeerJ!!

Update (18/2/2015):
Today I received the following message from Springer:
A scientific journal’s greatest responsibility is to ensure that all contributions accepted for publication are rigorously but fairly reviewed. Without your hard work, this would not be possible.

As a sign of appreciation, please accept this offer for 50% off your next Springer Shop print or eBook purchase. 


Popular posts from this blog

Impact of Plan S on Chemistry research in Europe

Below is given a list of journals that are present at the DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals) and that are listed in one of the seven categories in Chemistry in the Journal Citation Reports (JCR): ·CHEMISTRY, ANALYTICAL ·CHEMISTRY, APPLIED ·CHEMISTRY, INORGANIC & NUCLEAR ·CHEMISTRY, MEDICINAL ·CHEMISTRY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY ·CHEMISTRY, ORGANIC ·CHEMISTRY, PHYSICAL These seven categories include all 553 journals in Chemistry (see Appendix 1), except some general scientific journals like Nature, Science, Nature Communications, Scientific Reports, etc. and also does not include new initiatives like iScienceChem Squared
The full list of 49 DOAJ entries in Chemistry (8.9% of all Chemistry journals) is given in Appendix 2, but shown here below is the list of 11 journals (2.0% of all Chemistry journals in JCR!!!!) that I recognize[1]:
·ACS Central Science·Catalysts·Chemical Science·ChemistryOpen·Croatica Chemica Acta·Frontiers in Chemistry·International Journal of Molecular Sciences·Journ…

Impact of Plan-S on European Research in 10 scientific disciplines

A few weeks ago I posted already the troubling current situation for Chemistry, where out of 553 journals listed in Journal Citation Reportsonly 48 journals[1] are included in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), and only 11 were known to me (i.e. 2.0%).

Today I add the same analysis for nine more fields in scientific research (Bio, CompSci, Engin, Math, MatSci, Med, Phys, Psych, Social)[2][3], with similar results. Out of the total of 4773 journals listed in JCR for these disciplines, only 399 are listed in DOAJ (8.4%).

Within the field of Chemistry, the majority of the 48 JCR/DOAJ journals were not known to me, and often included local/national journals. Assuming that the same holds for the other disciplines, and using a conservative estimate for this proportion of unknown journals (at least half), one comes to the conclusion that for the ten fields of science listed below, only ca. 2-4% of scientific journals is currently compliant with Plan S.

FieldNr. in JCRNr. in DOAJBio…

Exotic chemistry trumps nature

A few weeks ago the Twitter world was surprised by several Tweets where Chemistry played a big role. First of all, @StuartCantrill posted a cry for help:
Can somebody please hurry up and make a cyclic trimer from livermorium – I'm desperate to use 'Bizarre Lv triangle' as a cover line at NChem — Stuart Cantrill (@stuartcantrill) May 26, 2017 A few days later there was a late-night typo by @RealDonaldTrump:
Despite the constant negative press covfefe — Donald J. Trump (@realdonaldtrump) May 30, 2017 which was deleted the next day (but that does not work), and replaced by a challenge:
Who can figure out the true meaning of "covfefe" ??? Enjoy! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 31, 2017
This obviously calls for a #CompChem solution, and hence I accepted the challenge and proposed a structure for the cyclic trimer livermorium (at BP86/TZ2P with Spin-Orbit ZORA as done within the ADF program):
something like this?
(cyclic Lv3 trimer with odd orbitals) pic.twit…