Just wondering :

Do reviewers get paid to review potential journal articles?

What are the advantages and disadvantages of being a reviewer?

Any thoughts on this???

Thanks!

Pay: no. Think of it like karma: for every paper you submit for review, you should review at least one other paper.

Advantages: (a) you get to see some of the latest research in your field. If the journal is a top journal in the field then the research is also likely to be of good quality. (b) It hones your critical thinking skills. (c) You get an insight into what journals want to see in a paper.

Disadvantages: it takes up time, especially if there are lots of changes required over two or three resubmission.

Thanks for your input! Appreciate it.

I would add that it can be fun. Also how satisfying to know that you are critically appraising the latest research from some of the leading researchers. Unless the paper is awful, the authors may also become colleagues, collaborators or employers in the future? All to gain, and *only* a bit of your time to commit (indeed as metabanalysis said you don't get paid but there would be no peer-reviewed journal if nobody agreed to review).

PS. If the article contains some good research but is badly written, don't spend too much time correcting it. Your role as reviewer is not to be a proofreader. What you are bringing is expertise in the field, not help with grammar and spelling.

The problem is you do not know the author of this paper.
But this author could be one of the editors of the journal.

If there are inaccuracies in one's review, they may be criticized or discussed among the editors...
It is a very, very small world, many things may happen as a result...