Read on Twitter
Some thoughts on why we shouldn't be complaining about the "unpaid work" of #PeerReview: a thread
#AcademicTwitter
#AcademicTwitter
1/ Most basically: it's not like there is a clear list of the things we are being paid for as scientists; many tasks are *implicitly* part of our "job description", including #PeerReview.
2/ It's not like peer review is only unproductive sunk costs: first, for once you actually *have to* read something carefully, not only skimming abstract-intro-conclusions; that's a good thing to do, now and then.
3/ Second, engaging critically-constructively with a new contribution to one's field can help to generally reflect critically on said field, rather than just accepting the state of the art as given.
4/ Third, you have to understand the papers you review, so you may (have to) learn new methods, concepts etc. Ideally, these methods/concepts reflect the "cutting edge"/frontier in your field.
5/ In interdisciplinary research, peer review can provide a good opportunity to venture into related fields that you normally don't interact with much.
6/ Last but not least: it's about #reciprocity. You want your papers reviewed, too. Preferably in a fair, reasonably quick and thorough manner. So it's fair to be expected to do the same. And by the way: for the system to work, we should be reviewing more than we publish!
7/ I once tried to come up with a formula for how many more reviews one should do compared to publications ( https://bartoszbartk.com/2018/02/06/die-peer-review-formel/, German); with numbers reasonable for my field I came up with a 3:1 ratio. /end
P.S. Many of my arguments (and more) have been formulated (better) by others, including @ManuSaunders https://ecologyisnotadirtyword.com/2016/01/25/why-i-dont-want-to-be-paid-for-peer-review/
