ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

Letters

I feel compelled to respond to Ann Brierly’s letter (THE SCIENTIST, June 1, 1987, P. 10) about my Opinion article “Should Journals Pay Referees?” (THE SCIENTIST, March 9, 1987, p. 13). I agree with Brierly’s statement that reviewing manuscripts for journals is our professional duty, but thinking that being paid for reviewing a paper is a bribe is quite unreasonable. One of the professional duties of a physician is occasionally to examine people before they are hired for

Leon J. Spicer

I feel compelled to respond to Ann Brierly’s letter (THE SCIENTIST, June 1, 1987, P. 10) about my Opinion article “Should Journals Pay Referees?” (THE SCIENTIST, March 9, 1987, p. 13). I agree with Brierly’s statement that reviewing manuscripts for journals is our professional duty, but thinking that being paid for reviewing a paper is a bribe is quite unreasonable. One of the professional duties of a physician is occasionally to examine people before they are hired for certain jobs. If the patient is found healthy and physically fit, is payment to the physician for services rendered considered a bribe?

If Brierly does not think referee apathy exists, she is kidding herself. Of the eight articles I published in four different refereed journals last year, only one set of reviews was sent hack to me within five weeks (from date of receipt at the editorial office...

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of

Receive full access to digital editions of The Scientist, as well as TS Digest, feature stories, more than 35 years of archives, and much more!
Already a member?
ADVERTISEMENT