The ‘peer reviewer as collaborator’ model for publishing

Abstract

ABSTRACT Manuscript peer review has been studied extensively and the drawbacks of the process in its current form are well known. Many alternatives to the traditional peer‐review process have been suggested; most of these focus on increasing the accountability of the reviewers. Little has been done regarding improving incentives for reviewers. Making the process more attractive to the reviewers improves the efficiency of the process and benefits everyone involved in it. It is perhaps not enough to keep harping on the altruistic values of peer review. Personal profit motives should be addressed as well. This article examines the possibility of offering co‐authorship of the manuscript to the reviewers.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 11 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.