4 ms·

Don't review for free. Seriously. Every time you review for a journal and don't ask for a reasonable (say, $150/h) fee, you are enabling their predatory pract

by 08-15 10y ago

Don't review for free. Seriously. Every time you review for a journal and don't ask for a reasonable (say, $150/h) fee, you are enabling their predatory practices. Stop doing it. Come to think about it, why not copy their pricing scheme? Sure, I'll review for this particular journal for $3000/h---or I agree to review for any of your journals, for a flat rate of $3000/week, even if there is nothing interesting to review... But really, at the very least, stop doing it for free. > otherwise I risk plagirizing my own writing. No, you don't, because that's impossible. You might risk infringing the journal's copyright---but the journal only has a copyright on the final article, not on the words you submitted. Maybe that's what differentiates Biology from Physics: you guys thinks self-plagiarization (sp?) is a thing.

impendia 10y ago
>Don't review for free. As an academic (who hates Elsevier as much as OP, and who has also signed the boycott), I can't agree. If we accept payment from publishers then we tie ourselves into their ecosystem even more. I personally think of academic mathematics like a giant, collaborative, open source project. Research wants to be free, and there is no reason it shouldn't be. Fortunately (for now at least; researchers are being replaced by adjuncts in too many places) the open source model is sustainable. Universities hire us (at somewhat modest salaries) to teach classes and to write TPS reports from time to time, and to actively maintain a presence in the research community. And grant-making agencies such as the NSF are delighted to have the results of their funding disseminated as widely and as openly as possible. It's not perfect, but to a large extent (at least outside the laboratory sciences) we have the luxury of simply contributing to knowledge without worrying too much about where our next paycheck will come from. That is one of the reasons why we're willing to work for half the salary that we might get in industry. For a good model I recommend Discrete Analysis [1], a mathematics journal started by Tim Gowers. It is an arXiv overlay journal, meaning they do not publish articles (even electronically). They have a top-notch editorial board that handles peer review and lends their imprimatur to papers which are hosted elsewhere (on the arXiv, a free preprint server). It's everything that academics could want from a journal, with none of the cruft. If I ever do any research in the area of the journal then I am definitely submitting here. And I will dream of it getting accepted. [1] http://discreteanalysisjournal.com http://discreteanalysisjournal.com
- coherentpony 10y ago
  Not to mention that accepting payment may or may not have complications with various different types of worker statuses.
- Ericson2314 10y ago
  Not an academic, but I feel like charging for-profit journals for rwviews but not community-driven overlay ones is a practical and ethical policy.
  - Natsu 10y ago
    It would be in isolation, but it would also make it hard for people to replace that income if they came to depend on it.
    - Ericson2314 10y ago
      Sure. For the near term that is not an issue. Longer term at least the company is offering more of a service
      - Natsu 10y ago
        It interferes with a goal of replacing the model entirely. Since it's already clear that academics pay dearly to do this (let alone doing it for free!) it's not clear that the journals add anything but prestige, so anything we can do to eliminate that for a model will allow everyone full access to the literature. If the effort currently wasted here could be redirected into making research available to all, it would be good for everyone except the publishers.
    - 08-15 10y ago
      So you would become a professional reviewer. Sounds like a reasonable career choice to me.
  - impendia 10y ago
    I certainly agree that it's ethical. As far as practicality goes, demanding payment will invariably amount to refusing the review assignment. I don't have any problem with that, but I don't believe that any publishers will be willing to meet such a demand.

by 08-15 10y ago

impendia 10y ago

>Don't review for free. As an academic (who hates Elsevier as much as OP, and who has also signed the boycott), I can't agree. If we accept payment from publishers then we tie ourselves into their ecosystem even more. I personally think of academic mathematics like a giant, collaborative, open source project. Research wants to be free, and there is no reason it shouldn't be. Fortunately (for now at least; researchers are being replaced by adjuncts in too many places) the open source model is sustainable. Universities hire us (at somewhat modest salaries) to teach classes and to write TPS reports from time to time, and to actively maintain a presence in the research community. And grant-making agencies such as the NSF are delighted to have the results of their funding disseminated as widely and as openly as possible. It's not perfect, but to a large extent (at least outside the laboratory sciences) we have the luxury of simply contributing to knowledge without worrying too much about where our next paycheck will come from. That is one of the reasons why we're willing to work for half the salary that we might get in industry. For a good model I recommend Discrete Analysis [1], a mathematics journal started by Tim Gowers. It is an arXiv overlay journal, meaning they do not publish articles (even electronically). They have a top-notch editorial board that handles peer review and lends their imprimatur to papers which are hosted elsewhere (on the arXiv, a free preprint server). It's everything that academics could want from a journal, with none of the cruft. If I ever do any research in the area of the journal then I am definitely submitting here. And I will dream of it getting accepted. [1] http://discreteanalysisjournal.com http://discreteanalysisjournal.com

coherentpony 10y ago
Not to mention that accepting payment may or may not have complications with various different types of worker statuses.
Ericson2314 10y ago
Not an academic, but I feel like charging for-profit journals for rwviews but not community-driven overlay ones is a practical and ethical policy.
- Natsu 10y ago
  It would be in isolation, but it would also make it hard for people to replace that income if they came to depend on it.
  - Ericson2314 10y ago
    Sure. For the near term that is not an issue. Longer term at least the company is offering more of a service
    - Natsu 10y ago
      It interferes with a goal of replacing the model entirely. Since it's already clear that academics pay dearly to do this (let alone doing it for free!) it's not clear that the journals add anything but prestige, so anything we can do to eliminate that for a model will allow everyone full access to the literature. If the effort currently wasted here could be redirected into making research available to all, it would be good for everyone except the publishers.
  - 08-15 10y ago
    So you would become a professional reviewer. Sounds like a reasonable career choice to me.
- impendia 10y ago
  I certainly agree that it's ethical. As far as practicality goes, demanding payment will invariably amount to refusing the review assignment. I don't have any problem with that, but I don't believe that any publishers will be willing to meet such a demand.