3 ms·
Fact: Science needs peer review. (well...kinda fact, there's arguments against) Fact: This costs money Fact: Private industry doing things works well in many
by aaron695 10y ago
Fact: Science needs peer review. (well...kinda fact, there's arguments against)
Fact: This costs money
Fact: Private industry doing things works well in many markets
Fact: It's arguable art is a human right. It's why we live, compared to science that allows us to live.
Napster and science are similar. You can argue in a better world the markets could be better done, but you seem to me to be denying things we know....
Someone has to pay to organise peer review. Is it crazy the 'cost' of this is so high, perhaps. But it's not "Science isn't Napster".
- pessimizer 10y agoFact: Journals don't pay for peer review
- auxym 10y agoPlaying devils advocate here: Reviewers themselves aren't paid, but the publishers do pay editors to do preliminary filtering, select reviewers, collect their comments and decide what to do with them. Now that is relatively little work for the comparatively extortionate prices they charge.
- ska 10y agoI'm pretty sure that is inconsistent also (i.e. editor is not necessarily a paid position). Furthermore, in the cases I know of where the editorial work is paid, it is only a nominal amount - there is no sense in which the time involved is actually covered by the fees.
- Ar-Curunir 10y agoEditors are paid a pittance, at most.