And just to be clear: I’m not saying that time to decision is the metric we ought to be using to indicate quality. I’m simply sharing my data to help provide a window onto what the reviewing process is actually like. See this exchange for further thoughts: bsky.app/profile/dand...
Will Allen
Agree with Vincent 100%. I also truly hate that "time to decision/review" is the metric by which we evaluate peer review.
Sometimes it takes me a long time to write a review because I don't know what to say about the paper on my first pass and I have to think about it for a while (wow).
Dan de Kadt
I worry that initiatives like this will break pro-social norms. Willingness to give feedback generously is one of the most beautiful things in our community. Plus, universities pay profs with the understanding that this is part of the job description, so the idea we do this for "free" is laughable.
Vincent Arel-Bundock
Paying peer reviewers works.
Expanded Fast & Fair experiment @biologyopen.bsky.social:
• 5.5 vs 37.7 working days to decision with reviews
• ~3 vs ~9 reviewer invitations per manuscript
• no reduction in editor-assessed review quality
• similar acceptance rates
www.biorxiv.org/content/10.6...
