Will Paying Reviewers Ease the Peer Review Crisis? I am skeptical

A report by Inside Higher Education presents promising trials of journals that paid reviewers for writing a report. Turnaround times dropped and the quality of reports was high. It is certainly good that journals explore payment of reviewers, but I am skeptical that this can ease the “peer review crisis”, meaning to improve low turnaround times and reduce difficulties in recruiting reviewers in the first place. As the report states, this is plausible because the compensation likely induces a sense of commitment and responsibility that accelerates the review process. I think the key question is: Does a payment model scale? When I get one invitation for a paid review report, I give it priority, but may also put other reports on hold and may decline other invitations for non-paid reports. What would happen when I get paid for all reports and all create the same sense of responsibility? Would one attach priority to all of them, putting research and teaching commitments second? I find this…