3 ms·
Are you sure you are well-informed about this? For instance: * the scientific journals I know do not pay their scientific editors ([1], this can differ for abs
by NotOscarWilde 9y ago
Are you sure you are well-informed about this? For instance:
* the scientific journals I know do not pay their scientific editors ([1], this can differ for absolute top journals like Nature/Science);
* arXiv is a preprint server, not an archiving server [2];
* you call "open source" what is usually called "open access", I think.
[1]: https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/43574/how-much-is-an-editor-paid https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/43574/how-much-...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArXiv https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ArXiv
- tomw2005 9y ago1) I was trying to talk in general terms. I understand that the peers doing the peer review are usually not paid but that there are other editors involved. I probably should have made that more clear. One of my fellow PhD students is now an editor for a journal. 2) I was aware of this also. I have seen some weird stuff on arXiv but it is normally trustworthy within the realms of Physics. I must admit my use of it was higher as an undergrad than a postgrad. Again I was probably being imprecise in my terminology but it is an archive of pre-prints. 3) 'Slip of the tongue'. I'll edit that in my original comment. Turns out you can't edit a comment after that long. I didn't know that but I think that is probably a good idea overall. I meant Open Access not Open Source. I would consider myself pretty well informed as I was in academia until a move to industry a few years back and still work fairly closely with academics. That being said I am always happy to be corrected, I know people's opinions on this subject are a moving target and it is probably different at different hierarchies within academia. Thanks.