scholarly journals A billion-dollar donation: estimating the cost of researchers’ time spent on peer review

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Balazs Aczel ◽  
Barnabas Szaszi ◽  
Alex O. Holcombe
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Peer Review System ◽  
Review System ◽  
Benefit Ratio ◽  
Peer Reviews ◽  
Monetary Value ◽  
Enormous Amount ◽  
Cost Benefit Ratio ◽  
The Cost

Abstract Background The amount and value of researchers’ peer review work is critical for academia and journal publishing. However, this labor is under-recognized, its magnitude is unknown, and alternative ways of organizing peer review labor are rarely considered. Methods Using publicly available data, we provide an estimate of researchers’ time and the salary-based contribution to the journal peer review system. Results We found that the total time reviewers globally worked on peer reviews was over 100 million hours in 2020, equivalent to over 15 thousand years. The estimated monetary value of the time US-based reviewers spent on reviews was over 1.5 billion USD in 2020. For China-based reviewers, the estimate is over 600 million USD, and for UK-based, close to 400 million USD. Conclusions By design, our results are very likely to be under-estimates as they reflect only a portion of the total number of journals worldwide. The numbers highlight the enormous amount of work and time that researchers provide to the publication system, and the importance of considering alternative ways of structuring, and paying for, peer review. We foster this process by discussing some alternative models that aim to boost the benefits of peer review, thus improving its cost-benefit ratio.

Home Visitation Investment

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1992 ◽  
Vol 89 (1) ◽  
pp. 169-169
Author(s):  
NORMAN J. SISSMAN
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Home Visits ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Home Visitation ◽  
Benefit Ratio ◽  
Health Care Resources ◽  
Detailed Consideration ◽  
Cost Benefit Ratio ◽  
Women And Children ◽  
The Cost

To the Editor.— Two recent reviews in Pediatrics1,2 provide much interesting information on the effect of home visits on the health of women and children. However, I was disappointed not to find in either article more than token reference to the cost of the programs reviewed. In this day of increasingly scarce health care resources, we no longer have the luxury of evaluating programs such as these without detailed consideration of their cost-benefit ratio.

scholarly journals Ultrasound scan as a potential source of nosocomial and cross-infection: a literature review

2015 ◽  
Vol 48 (5) ◽  
pp. 319-323 ◽  
Author(s):  
André Hadyme Miyague ◽  
Fernando Marum Mauad ◽  
Wellington de Paula Martins ◽  
Augusto César Garcia Benedetti ◽  
Ana Elizabeth Gomes de Melo Tavares Ferreira ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Literature Review ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Cross Infection ◽  
Ultrasound Scan ◽  
Benefit Ratio ◽  
Source Of Infection ◽  
Potential Source ◽  
Cost Benefit Ratio ◽  
The Cost

AbstractThe authors review the main concepts regarding the importance of cleaning/disinfection of ultrasonography probes, aiming a better comprehension by practitioners and thus enabling strategies to establish a safe practice without compromising the quality of the examination and the operator productivity. In the context of biosafety, it is imperative to assume that contact with blood or body fluids represents a potential source of infection. Thus, in order to implement cleaning/disinfection practice, it is necessary to understand the principles of infection control, to consider the cost/benefit ratio of the measures to be implemented, and most importantly, to comprehend that such measures will not only benefit the health professional and the patient, but the society as a whole.

scholarly journals The unpopularity of incentive-based instruments: what improves the cost–benefit ratio?

Public Choice ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 175 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 37-62 ◽  
Author(s):  
Isabelle Stadelmann-Steffen ◽  
Clau Dermont
Keyword(s):  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Benefit Ratio ◽  
Cost Benefit Ratio ◽  
The Cost

An Economic Evaluation of the Introduction of Vaccination Against Hepatitis a in a Peacekeeping Operation: The Case of the United Nations Protection Force in Yugoslavia

1994 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 490-497 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tom Jefferson ◽  
Vittorio Demicheli ◽  
David Wright
Keyword(s):  
United Nations ◽  
Marginal Cost ◽  
Hepatitis A ◽  
Passive Immunization ◽  
Cost Benefit ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Costs And Benefits ◽  
Benefit Ratio ◽  
Cost Benefit Ratio ◽  
The Cost

AbstractThe costs and benefits of vaccinating troops on United Nations tours in Yugoslavia against hepatitis A were compared. The marginal cost of one case of hepatitis A avoided by vaccination was calculated and compared with the marginal cost of achieving the same outcome by passive immunization. The cost-benefit ratio (medium estimate) for troops at low risk of contracting hepatitis A was 0.01 and for those at high risk was 0.03.Vaccinating troops against hepatitis A for a single deployment appears to be an inefficient procedure, especially in troops at low risk. However, in professional troops from countries of low hepatitis A endemicity who are likely to be involved in several operational deployments, vaccination becomes more efficient the more times the same troops are deployed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document