RE: Token compensation, was: In the news (Georgia State)

["Acreman, Beverley" <Beverley.Acreman@tandf.co.uk>]

Apologies for the slow response, but we've switched the article 
Phil cited below to free to view in case others might want to 
read it:

Author(s): MASON, PM; STEAGALL, JW; FABRITIUS, MM
Title: PUBLICATION DELAYS IN ARTICLES IN ECONOMICS - WHAT TO DO ABOUT
THEM
Source: APPLIED ECONOMICS, 24 (8): 859-874 AUG 1992

http://www.informaworld.com/openurl?genre=article&issn=0003-6846&volume=
24&issue=8&spage=859

Bev Acreman
Taylor & Francis


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Phil Davis
Sent: 23 April 2008 00:08
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: Re: Token copensation, was: In the news (Georgia State)

I have found one article on paying economists to complete their reviews
more expediently, but nothing on whether paying a reviewer results in a
higher-quality review which appears to be the motivation for JHEP.
--Phil Davis

Author(s): MASON, PM; STEAGALL, JW; FABRITIUS, MM
Title: PUBLICATION DELAYS IN ARTICLES IN ECONOMICS - WHAT TO DO ABOUT
THEM
Source: APPLIED ECONOMICS, 24 (8): 859-874 AUG 1992

Abstract: The issue of publication delays in economics journals 
is addressed based on survey responses from members of the 
American Economic Association. The results imply that there is 
both a perceived and actual problem with the length of time it 
takes to have journal articles published in economics. The 
fundamental realization is that there is no one to blame for the 
delays but ourselves. The survey results imply that if economists 
were more efficient in reviewing documents and returning the 
results, the delays could be reduced considerably. *To help 
enhance efficiency, there seems to be considerable support for 
the idea of paying reviewers, and for doing so on a sliding scale 
relative to expeditiousness, and paying for this service through 
larger assessments upon submission.* However, there is also an 
emphasis that editors need a restructuring of their selection 
process, and enhanced policing of reviewers.

Joseph J. Esposito wrote:

> As a rule, reviewers, when they get compensated at all, receive far
> less to review a book or article for quality than a lawyer receives
> for reviewing the same work for liability.
>
> Joe Esposito
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Phil Davis" <pmd8@cornell.edu>
> To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>; <enrico@medialab.sissa.it>
> Sent: Monday, April 21, 2008 4:47 PM
> Subject: Token copensation, was: In the news (Georgia State)
>
>> I'd be interested in what 'a token fee' means?  Given that reviewers
>> claim they spend hours on each article they review, can a 'token fee'

>> be considered ample remuneration of reviewers' time and expertise?
>> In studies of social psychology, one often gets better results from
>> volunteers when they are not compensated than when they are
>> compensated badly.
>> Many medical journals publish annual lists of the reviewers as a
>> public acknowledgment of their contribution, which appears to be an
>> act of compensation (payment as prestige).
>>
>> I'd be very interested to know whether token compensation results in
>> better reviews in JHEP.  Is anyone aware of similar reviewer
>> compensation experiments?
>>
>> Philip M. Davis
>> PhD Student
>> Department of Communication
>> Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853
>> email: pmd8@cornell.edu
>> https://confluence.cornell.edu/display/~pmd8/resume