3 ms·
>Publishers can provide value, and should not be forced to do so at a loss. Yes, they can. But they don't. >Peer review, Free. Volunteers. >curating for qua
by icelancer 9y ago
>Publishers can provide value, and should not be forced to do so at a loss.
Yes, they can. But they don't.
>Peer review,
Free. Volunteers.
>curating for quality, editing, typesetting,
They don't do this. You are expected to do it all. Your papers are sent back for revisions and/or rejected by peer review editors and reviewers, who again, work for free.
>and creating physical copies could be expensive.
Physical copies cost additional money to acquire anyway.
- yladiz 9y ago> Free. Volunteers. I don't think this is a good solution, because in reality reviewing these papers is complicated work for people who have spent years, often times decades, in their field. They do deserve to be paid. I do think publishers provide tangible, real value, but often the value they provide is significantly outweighed by the problems that arise from the way they run their businesses.
- icelancer 9y ago>I don't think this is a good solution, because in reality reviewing these papers is complicated work for people who have spent years, often times decades, in their field. They do deserve to be paid. I absolutely agree. But this is not how it works and suggestions to pay reviewers is usually met with haughty academic nonsense. Publishers in academia (and in the normal book industry, to boot) add near zero value while extracting huge fees.