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/open
url?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-llists.yale.edu] On Behalf
Of Phil Davis
Sent: 23 April 2008 00:08
To: liblicense-llists.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" <pmd8cornell.edu>
> To: <liblicense-llists.yale.edu>;
<enricomedialab.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: pmd8cornell.edu
>> h
ttps://confluence.cornell.edu/display/~pmd8/resume
|
