How should OPR participation currently be best understood in relation to one's primary academic profession?
Answer
As a career accelerant within the existing academic structure
The current structure positions OPR participation as something that enhances an existing career path, rather than being a profession from which the primary income is derived.
Related Questions
Is a dedicated career built solely on peer review currently financially viable?Which OPR model involves making reviewer critiques public without revealing the authors of those critiques?How is engagement with OPR primarily viewed for early-career scientists (ECRs)?What is the core value proposition of OPR for a researcher's career visibility?What is the general status regarding financial compensation for peer reviewers in most academic journals?What potential negative effect might attached reviewer identities have on the quality of criticism?Toward which types of roles can expertise gained in OPR serve as a fast-track toward standard compensation?What is suggested as a more impactful CV framing for published open reviews rather than simply listing the service?How should OPR participation currently be best understood in relation to one's primary academic profession?Which OPR model explicitly allows authors and reviewers to communicate directly to debate merits?