LIMERICK CITY COUNCIL PILOT RETAIL INCENTIVE SCHEME FOR VACANT
Reviewer's Incentive Scheme
Transcript of Reviewer's Incentive Scheme
![Page 1: Reviewer's Incentive Scheme](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022052515/58a01c441a28abd04d8ba34f/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
ReviewerReviewer’’s Incentive s Incentive SchemeScheme
David MahoneyScheme Manager
EPSRC
![Page 2: Reviewer's Incentive Scheme](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022052515/58a01c441a28abd04d8ba34f/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
World-leading research requires excellent peer review
• Good reviewing (refereeing) is vital;• EPSRC operates a peer review system that is fair,
flexible, open, easy to understand, and efficient to operate;
• External reviewers are at the heart of the EPSRC peer review system:
![Page 3: Reviewer's Incentive Scheme](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022052515/58a01c441a28abd04d8ba34f/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
EPSRC Peer Review College
• The EPSRC college contains over 4100 members• Wide range of disciplines and backgrounds• 15% of members are UK non-academics• 11% of members are from outside the UK and are
both academic and non-academic• Members are appointed for 4 years• All members are offered training
![Page 4: Reviewer's Incentive Scheme](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022052515/58a01c441a28abd04d8ba34f/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
EPSRC Peer Review College
9%11%60+
21%29%50-60
35%41%40-50
35%19%Age: Under 40
10%9%Non-White
11%12%Female
Grant Investigators
College
![Page 5: Reviewer's Incentive Scheme](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022052515/58a01c441a28abd04d8ba34f/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Why do reviewers do it?
• Sense of community/duty
• Altruism/it’s how science works
• Quality control
• Knowing what’s going on
• Power and influence
But not
• Money
![Page 6: Reviewer's Incentive Scheme](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022052515/58a01c441a28abd04d8ba34f/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Problems with reviewingFor the Research Council• Quality• Timeliness• Reviewers do not fully understand the
peer review process
For the Reviewer• Lack of time/Too many other things to do• Lack of recognition• Reviewers do not understand how EPSRC
uses reviews
![Page 7: Reviewer's Incentive Scheme](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022052515/58a01c441a28abd04d8ba34f/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Solution?
For the Research Council• Faster, better reviewing• Raise prestige• Train reviewers
For the Reviewer• More time• More recognition• Get training
![Page 8: Reviewer's Incentive Scheme](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022052515/58a01c441a28abd04d8ba34f/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Payments for Reviewing – “Peer Miles”
• Introduced in 2001 to raise prestige of reviewing and improve response rate
• Two points for a usable review returned on time• One point for a usable review returned late• No points if unusable or too late to be used in peer
review process
![Page 9: Reviewer's Incentive Scheme](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022052515/58a01c441a28abd04d8ba34f/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Payments for Reviewing – Value
• EPSRC distributes £750k to Departments for use for approved purposes – conferences, students support etc
• At year end points gained by department added up
• Each point worth about £35 in 2006/7, so £70 (¥14,762) for a timely and usable review
![Page 10: Reviewer's Incentive Scheme](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022052515/58a01c441a28abd04d8ba34f/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Payments for Reviewing
Benefits• Gesture of appreciation - recognition for reviewing -
in department and by individual, but not a major motivator
• Payments go to approved purposes - no direct payments to individuals (and thus no taxation)
• Administration simple – with light touch, audit process• 95% of heads of departments and 90% of reviewers
favoured the scheme (of those responding to a survey in 2003 )
![Page 11: Reviewer's Incentive Scheme](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022052515/58a01c441a28abd04d8ba34f/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Reported Uses of Payments
• Visits to conferences
• Publication costs• Staff or student development• Teaching seminars – (such as travel expenses)• Travel budgets • Expenses for invited speakers• Equipment for PhD students, small pieces of lab
equipment, software, computer equipment
![Page 12: Reviewer's Incentive Scheme](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022052515/58a01c441a28abd04d8ba34f/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Value of a “Peer Mile”
£26
£28
£30
£32
£34
£36
01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06Scheme Year (1 Sep to 31 Aug)
Valu
e of
1 P
oint
15000
17500
20000
22500
25000
27500
30000
Poin
ts E
arne
d
Points EarnedActual Point Value
![Page 13: Reviewer's Incentive Scheme](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022052515/58a01c441a28abd04d8ba34f/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Payments made to academic institutions for scheme year 2005-2006
£0
£5,000
£10,000
£15,000
£20,000
£25,000
£30,000
£35,000
£40,000
£45,000
Institutions
Ann
ual P
aym
ent
Payments made to academic institutions for scheme year
2005-2006
79
17
5
7
5
5
3
![Page 14: Reviewer's Incentive Scheme](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022052515/58a01c441a28abd04d8ba34f/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Reviews (Grants) Usable & Received On Time
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
55%
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
Start of Incentive Scheme
![Page 15: Reviewer's Incentive Scheme](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022052515/58a01c441a28abd04d8ba34f/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
Feb 01 Aug 01 Feb 02 Aug 02 Feb 03 Aug 03 Feb 04 Aug 04 Feb 05 Aug 05 Feb 06 Aug 06
Start of Scheme
Referees Not Responding - 3 Month Rolling Averages
![Page 16: Reviewer's Incentive Scheme](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022052515/58a01c441a28abd04d8ba34f/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Issues for the future
• Payment to other types of reviewers (industrial and overseas)? How?
• Value of Fund – should it be increased?
• Introduce a quality factor?
• Provide closer direct feedback of results to reviewers and Heads of departments
![Page 17: Reviewer's Incentive Scheme](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022052515/58a01c441a28abd04d8ba34f/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Expanding Scheme beyond UK Academics
• Increased emphasise on User (Industry) involvement in peer review.
• Engagement with overseas reviewers to give international perspective on research quality.
![Page 18: Reviewer's Incentive Scheme](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022052515/58a01c441a28abd04d8ba34f/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Increasing Industry Involvement In Peer Review
• EPSRC must respond to the Warry report: “Increasing the Economic Impact of the Research Councils” , one way is increasing User (Industry) involvement in peer review.
• Major impetus. Challenged to make a “step change”, through:
• Leadership• Influence (particularly, through incentives); and• Engagement.
![Page 19: Reviewer's Incentive Scheme](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022052515/58a01c441a28abd04d8ba34f/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Obstacles to Expansion of Cash Incentives
• Scheme offers additional research funding, not a personal payment and is tax exempt.
• Payment for reviews will incur tax liability for EPSRC (VAT) and for recipients (income tax). This would undermine the cost effectiveness of the scheme.
• All panel members receive a personal fee of £170 per day, but very expensive to pay individuals rather than institution.
![Page 20: Reviewer's Incentive Scheme](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022052515/58a01c441a28abd04d8ba34f/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
Obstacles to User Engagement
• Many Users work on a chargeable hours basis, can’t account for time spent on Peer Review in a business context.
• Panel fees low compared to consultancy, reviewing unpaid.
• Perception of no pay-back for users, no reciprocity from the process as there is for the academics.
• Users might not understand Research Councils so no incentive to assist us.
• A perception that EPSRC doesn’t act on or take notice of the advice provided by Users
![Page 21: Reviewer's Incentive Scheme](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022052515/58a01c441a28abd04d8ba34f/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
Alternatives to Cash Incentives
Emphasise benefits of engagement in Peer view
• Opportunities to network
• Panel Fees
• Moral Pressure (assisting your community)
• Providing an insight in to academic research
• Industry influence into selecting research proposals
![Page 22: Reviewer's Incentive Scheme](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022052515/58a01c441a28abd04d8ba34f/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
Alternative Ways to Engage Users
• Restructure College to better represent users
• Recruit users via Strategic Partnerships, als recognise at corporate rather than individual level
• Explain better who we are and why we are important
• Actively engage with users (for example, the recent by setting up of a Better Exploitation SAT)
• Differentiate types of users; strategic planners for future, solving current problem, commercialisation.