Should peer-reviewers be paid to reproduce findings?
Adventures in Ethics and Science: Why wouldn't this be a good way to do peer review?
At the link above is discussion on the Adventures of Ethics and Science blog about the possible benefit of a peer-review system in which the peer-reviewers are scientists paid to reproduce the experiments being reported in the submitted study. Janet D. Stemwedel asks:
Aside from the concern that the journals would need to find money to create and support (with lab space, materials, etc.) these positions -- which might well raise the price of journals beyond where they are already (or raise operating costs for open access journals) -- are there obvious reasons that a plan like this would be a bad idea?
