Big bucks for peer review?

The NIH's $1 billion linkurl:plan;http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/54733/ to improve peer review also includes compensation for reviewers: Grant reviewers will be compensated $250,000 for six years of service, if they qualify, The Chronicle of Higher Education linkurl:reported.;http://proxy.library.upenn.edu:2110/daily/2008/06/3136n.htm This surpasses the current $200 per day compensation. "In the end, peer review is only as good as the quality of the people doing it," Zerhouni told t

Andrea Gawrylewski
Jun 8, 2008
The NIH's $1 billion linkurl:plan;http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/54733/ to improve peer review also includes compensation for reviewers: Grant reviewers will be compensated $250,000 for six years of service, if they qualify, The Chronicle of Higher Education linkurl:reported.;http://proxy.library.upenn.edu:2110/daily/2008/06/3136n.htm This surpasses the current $200 per day compensation. "In the end, peer review is only as good as the quality of the people doing it," Zerhouni told the Chronicle. "I think you get what you pay for." Reviewers would qualify for the compensation by attending 18 peer review committee study sections, the Chronicle reported. By that standard only 7%, or 500, of current peer reviewers would qualify for the compensation. The NIH did not confirm these numbers before the deadline for this article. Agency spokesman Don Ralbovsky told The Scientist the numbers were generally correct but that he was uncomfortable with the Chronicle's article. He declined to elaborate. In addition to the compensation plan, the Chronicle...
Correction: In the original version of this blog Don Ralbovsky's last name was incorrectly spelled. The spelling has been changed and The Scientist regrets the error.

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of

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