Search

Background: There are a variety of costs associated with publication of scientific findings. The purpose of this work was to estimate the cost of peer review in scientific publishing per reviewer, per year and for the entire scientific community. Methods: Internet-based self-report, cross-sectional survey, live between June 28, 2021 and August 2, 2021 was used. Participants were recruited via snowball sampling. No restrictions were placed on geographic location or field of study. Respondents who were asked to act as a peer-reviewer for at least one manuscript submitted to a scientific journal in 2020 were eligible. The primary outcome measure was the cost of peer review per person, per year (calculated as wage-cost x number of initial reviews and number of re-reviews per year). The secondary outcome was the cost of peer review globally (calculated as the number of peer-reviewed papers in Scopus x median wage-cost of initial review and re-review). Results: A total of 354 participants completed at least one question of the survey, and information necessary to calculate the cost of peer-review was available for 308 participants from 33 countries (44% from Canada). The cost of peer review was estimated at $US1,272 per person, per year ($US1,015 for initial review and $US256 for re-review), or US$1.1–1.7 billion for the scientific community per year. The global cost of peer-review was estimated at US$6 billion in 2020 when relying on the Dimensions database and taking into account reviewed-but-rejected manuscripts. Conclusions: Peer review represents an important financial piece of scientific publishing. Our results may not represent all countries or fields of study, but are consistent with previous estimates and provide additional context from peer reviewers themselves. Researchers and scientists have long provided peer review as a contribution to the scientific community. Recognizing the importance of peer-review, institutions should acknowledge these costs in job descriptions, performance measurement, promotion packages, and funding applications. Journals should develop methods to compensate reviewers for their time and improve transparency while maintaining the integrity of the peer-review process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• 72% − 80% of fibre was recovered from disposable coffee cups. • 2% and 3% consistency shredded cups required > 100 kWh/tonne to repulp with 3 refiner passes. • Pulp quality did not significantly diminish after repulping using a single-disk refiner. Over 64 billion paper-plastic laminate (PPL) coffee cups are consumed between the United States and Canada annually, the majority accumulating in landfills due to a hydrophobic plastic inner-lining. Recycling can mitigate environmental damage and provide economic value from repurposed products. We found that standard repulping methods were insufficient to separate fiber from plastic due to the low intensity of treatment. To increase process intensity, we mechanically refined shredded PPL coffee cups and Kraft eucalyptus sheets (control) at 2%, 3%, and 4% consistencies with three passes to determine the energy required to separate fibers from plastic and the effects on fiber quality. 2% and 3% consistency PPL cups measured under 40 kWh/tonne of input material for one refiner pass and ∼ 80 kWh/tonne for 4% consistency PPL cups. Recovered fiber fraction totaled 87.7%, 85.3%, and 80.5% of input mass of Kraft eucalyptus and 72.3%, 72.6%, and 79.6% of input mass of PPL cups at 2%, 3%, and 4% consistency, respectively. Fines content of PPL cups jumped from 8% pre-refining to ∼ 30% post-refining while Kraft eucalyptus fibers were unaffected, suggesting that breaking the plastic-fiber bonds results in fines generation. Mean fiber length of PPL cups slightly decreased with consistency and tensile strength improved. Freeness decreased with consistency only in PPL cup samples. These results demonstrate a low energy requirement to effectively separate fiber and plastics in PPL cups as well as minimal impact on fiber quality using existing refining technology, and provides an estimate of the financial costs of local recycling efforts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]