Unpaid peer review is worth £1.9bn

Study tallies 'hidden subsidy' of global scholarly communications system. Zoe Corbyn reports

May 29, 2008

The idea of being paid for the time spent assessing colleagues' research might only fleetingly cross most academics' minds.

The advancement of the academy's collective body of knowledge has traditionally been held to be reward enough for the time and effort put into peer review.

But a new report has attempted to quantify in cash terms exactly what peer reviewers are missing out on. It puts the worldwide unpaid cost of peer review at £1.9 billion a year, and estimates that the UK is among the most altruistic of nations, racking up the equivalent in unpaid time of £165 million a year.

"This is a huge hidden subsidy to the system which no one has ever quantified," said Michael Jubb, director of the Research Information Network, which commissioned the study Activities, costs and funding flows in the scholarly communications system in the UK, undertaken by Cambridge Economic Policy Associates.

The assessment of peer-review costs is part of an attempt to provide - for the first time - a picture of the costs of the entire scholarly communications system, from the production of research outputs to the reading of them, focusing on their publication, distribution and access.

The study estimates that the global cost of undertaking and communicating the results of research reported in journal articles is £175 billion a year, made up of £116 billion for the costs of the research itself and £25 billion for publication, distribution and access to the articles (which includes the hidden costs of peer review) and £34 billion for reading them.

It also estimates that the UK is a "net contributor" to the global provision of peer review. While the country constitutes 3.3 per cent of the global research base and provides 6.6 per cent of the supply of journal articles, 7.1 per cent of all published articles are peer reviewed here, and account for 8.7 per cent of the hidden costs of peer review globally.

The report says there would be a "significant transfer" of funds to academics if peer reviewers were paid. But such a move would drive up journal prices, with the estimated "breakeven price" of a major discipline journal jumping 43 per cent, leaving libraries with a bigger bill.

"The estimated increase in the costs of subscriptions to UK libraries in the higher education sector would be of the order of £53 million, a rise of 45 per cent," the study says.

The report shows that a move to electronic-only publishing would bring a fall of about £1 billion (12 per cent) in global costs. A move towards author-pays open access publishing, on top of the cost reductions arising from a move to electronic publishing, could bring global savings of £556 million.


You've reached your article limit

Register to continue

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments

Most Commented

Laurel and Hardy sawing a plank of wood

Working with other academics can be tricky so follow some key rules, say Kevin O'Gorman and Robert MacIntosh

Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford will host a homeopathy conference next month

Charity says Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford is ‘naive’ to hire out its premises for event

women leapfrog. Vintage

Robert MacIntosh and Kevin O’Gorman offer advice on climbing the career ladder

Woman pulling blind down over an eye
Liz Morrish reflects on why she chose to tackle the failings of the neoliberal academy from the outside
White cliffs of Dover

From Australia to Singapore, David Matthews and John Elmes weigh the pros and cons of likely destinations