Hacker News Reader

Comment by confused_guy123 | Hacker News Reader

What I don't understand is why peer reviewers agree to perform uncompensated labor on behalf of these gargantuan, highly profitable publishers. What is the benefit to them, other than the warm glow of fulfilling one's professional obligations?

View on HN

Its very hard to turn down a request to review a paper you are qualified to comment on from an editor you know, or who regularly handles your papers. Editor X from Journal Y sends you a paper which you are well-qualified to review. You've submitted 5 papers to Journal Y in the last few years, some of them handled by Editor X. Are you really going to turn down Editor X's request?

What if the paper is written by Author Z, whose work you are familiar with and whose papers you read anyway. Why not review it?

And so on.

Often it is a favor to a colleague that is serving as the (also unpaid) editor to get a line on their CV. Given that the fields are highly specialized, you tend to work with the same small community of people (writing articles and getting project funding together, reviewing each other's articles, etc.), so it pays to be well-liked among your peers.

Mostly it's the latter, out of a sense of duty.

But there are other motives. Regular reviews give you some perspective that you otherwise wouldn't get. For example, you see what mistakes others make and that can help you improve your own papers. Another motivation for me is sometimes that I don't want the paper to be reviewed by someone less qualified in my areas of specialization.

Ever noticed that the person who appeals to your sense of duty is always your boss who doesn't want to give you a raise?

Aside from the other explanations, you also get a slight competitive benefit. If the paper is good, you get to use the ideas in the paper ahead of other people. Though everyone uses arxiv now, so not so much anymore.

Also you get a sense of power anonymously judging your colleague's work..

Reply on news.ycombinator.com