Author: Stephen Palmer
Position: Director
Institution: Coaching Psychology Unit, City University, London, UK
E-mail: dr.palmer@btinternet.com
Submitted Date: July 08, 2008
Published Date: July 18, 2008
This comment was originally posted as a “Reader Response” on the publication date indicated above. All Reader Responses are now available as comments.

Since I last left a comment over a year ago on this topic I've made more of an effort to monitor reviewing speeds on the journals I edit. I realise that when I want reviews done quickly, I generally send the paper to the same reviewers. In hindsight, it is probably unfair on those reviewers.

What I've become more aware of are the authors who get work published in the journals who then later can't be bothered even to respond to emails regarding reviewing papers.

The whole system regarding reviewing articles or being an external PhD examiner works on a quid pro quo basis. It breaks down when academics (or their employers) don't set aside time for these essential quid pro quo tasks. Financial incentives from publishers are unlikely to be sufficient to pay a proper rate that equates to an academic's wage so I doubt a small fee could be an incentive. It's a non-starter.

Whereas before I probably didn't think about this topic I'm far more aware of it now and want to address it. Could a stated editorial policy on these issues work? Would a contract to review one paper promptly work for regular authors I wonder? Authors have to sign a copyright agreement before publishing and it could be part of the same contract. These are just ideas.