Why I’m No Longer Doing Uncompensated Peer Reviews

I love (love, love, love) reviewing communication products. I love critically evaluating whether writing and visuals are meeting their objectives and, if not, developing potential solutions. That’s a huge part of why I started Data Soapbox and why it’s one of my two favorite jobs I’ve ever had.*

Ever since I started publishing in scientific journals in graduate school, journal editors occasionally ask whether I’m willing to review others’ journal submissions. For years, I’d usually agree to the review. However, since founding Data Soapbox, I think I’ve turned down every uncompensated review request. And it’s not just me…the lack of willing peer reviewers has become a crisis. Today, I wanted to explain why I’m no longer agreeing to do uncompensated peer reviews.

1) It’s not fair to my clients.

One of Data Soapbox’s main services is reviewing and providing feedback on draft communication products. Our clients get invoiced, and pay, for this service. It would not be fair to them if journals (especially for-profit journals) get this service for free.

2) I’m no longer up on the science.

Can I assess whether an argument is framed and supported in a way that makes sense? Yes. Can I review research results and suggest important takeaways and limitations? Also yes. I know what makes for good writing, I understand the core principles of research, and I can interpret most types of statistics.

Can I tell you whether a study uses the most up-to-date terminology, theory, sources, and methods? No. Can I tell you whether it replicates or contradicts recently published work? Also no. These judgements are better made by scientists who are immersed in the details and developments of their specific field, and that’s no longer my professional role. On to a related point…

3) I’m no longer in a “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours” situation.

One of the mechanisms that perpetuates uncompensated peer review is that almost every reviewer will themselves need the services of reviewers. If I submit a manuscript for review, two or three people will do that review. At some point, I return that favor by reviewing others’ manuscripts.

That model is no longer relevant to me. I’m no longer making the choice to submit manuscripts to journals; I’m supporting the scientists who make that choice.

4) There’s nothing in it for me.

When I was in graduate school, I reviewed because it helped me learn how to be a better writer and it was something I could put on my resume.

When I worked as a contract researcher, I reviewed because my employer paid me for my review time and it was a scholarly activity that could be included in my annual review.

As a research communication consultant, peer reviews have zero career currency…they won’t help me get a job, promotion, or contract. Also, because it’s not paying work for a client, any time I spent doing uncompensated reviews is unpaid. Which leads me to…

5) That’s not how I choose to volunteer my time.

I absolutely do uncompensated work, in roughly the same amounts as I do paying work. Some of my unpaid work focuses on business development…things like developing contract proposals, attending networking events, and writing blog posts (ahem). Some of my unpaid work is for causes or people that I care deeply about…things like speaking at my son’s middle school career day or giving a guest lecture for a decades-long friend. Journals don’t tick either of those boxes for me.

Are you still doing uncompensated peer reviews? Why or why not? Comment below!

*I also really loved working at Down Syndrome of Louisville in the early 00’s. Wonderful people, wonderful mission, wonder opportunities for freedom and creativity.