How is reviewing a research paper a community service? I don't mean that sarcastically but realistically medical journals specifically like in this article are commonly not free, thus I'm hard pressed to understand how this is a community service. An NDA would simply restrict you from discussing it prior to the authors publishing of it as I see it.
> How is reviewing a research paper a community service?
Traditionally we are neither offered nor would accept payment for technical paper reviews to avoid any suggestion of bias.
Since someone reviews my papers too, I get roughly the same value of work back in-kind.
We are bound by academic integrity to not discuss reviews, unpublished work, or the identity of any reviewer. This is a very strong norm.
On NDAs generally: if your entire job is based saying what you think, you avoid signing anything that restricts your ability to do that.
> Since someone reviews my papers too, I get roughly the same value of work back in-kind.
I've heard of journals that are loosely codifying this by saying they may refuse submissions from authors who serially refuse to review manuscripts. I don't know how prevalent it is overall, though.
Peer review does not happen in a vacuum. If you do not review my manuscript, who will review your manuscript when you submit it? Scientists are generally encouraged to complete a review for every review they receive. Reviewers are generally not paid.
> medical journals specifically like in this article are commonly not free
Yes, this is one of the biggest issues in scientific publishing today. I don't believe there are any easy solutions, just trade-offs (absent governments nationalizing scientific publishers and returning control to universities)
> How is reviewing a research paper a community service? I don't mean that sarcastically but realistically medical journals specifically like in this article are commonly not free, thus I'm hard pressed to understand how this is a community service.
I can't speak to medicine, but in astronomy peer review is done for free. The reviewers receive no benefits or compensation from the journal for their time/effort. I believe it is similar across most scientific disciplines.
> The reviewers receive no benefits or compensation from the journal for their time/effort.
Some of the ACM venues give five dollar coffee mugs to reviewers if they go to the actual conference. I wonder how much of a discount that works out to per hour of review time. :)
> Some of the ACM venues give five dollar coffee mugs to reviewers if they go to the actual conference. I wonder how much of a discount that works out to per hour of review time. :)
It would vary a lot on the size/complexity of the paper, but I typically spend 1–3 days reviewing a paper.
Peer review is done for free by other academics, not by the journal publishers. The fact that the published journal is not free is unrelated to the peer review process, which is entirely academic.
