4 ms·

Most of the work is done by academics who receive no compensation from the publisher. Most importantly, it is expected that one participate in peer review. Fund

Most of the work is done by academics who receive no compensation from the publisher. Most importantly, it is expected that one participate in peer review. Fundamentally, there's nothing wrong with a reciprocal model of review, but why should publishers get to enjoy enormous profit margins on said work when they're not the ones doing it? Authors don't receive any money from subscriptions or access fees, either. Editors sometimes receive some compensation, but very little. There's just not a lot that the publishers do. It seems unfair that they should be the only ones to profit monetarily from academics' work.

Vinnl 9y ago
It's not that publishers do little (there's a lot that you don't usually see, but it's not the peer review), just that not all of it is that necessary, and that it still pales in comparison to the prices they charge.
- monob 9y ago
  In physics at least you need to write and typeset your own papers for the most part. Look at arxiv.org, that papers there are made purely by academics from start to finish and are already publication grade (if not better).
  - Vinnl 9y ago
    Yes, physics (and most disciplines on arXiv) is relatively special. Although for some reason physicists still mostly submit there work to the journals in addition to placing them on arXiv... (That said, typesetting and writing are more and more often offloaded to academics, but there's also things like e.g. making HTML versions and system-readable versions [1] available, which is a cumbersome manual process.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_for_Metadata_Harvesting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_for_Metadata_Harvesti...
    - noobermin 9y ago
      It depends on the field, but you're forgetting that arXiv does not do peer-review. Just because publishing is broken and yes peer-review has issues doesn't mean peer-review isn't needed.
      - Vinnl 9y ago
        On the one hand that's an important point, but on the other hand, the formal process of peer review as currently arranged by journals has many flaws, and the reason arXiv is so popular in fields like physics is that they want their results "out there" for others to use as soon as possible - i.e. people start to use it before it's been peer reviewed. In fact, the comments one receives after publishing it in arXiv often make its way into the submitted manuscript. So yes, peer review is useful, but it also often happens after publication at arXiv, outside of the journal submission.
pishpash 9y ago
Reviewers certainly shouldn't be the ones profiting from it, that would be an absurd conflict-of-interest. Publishers do some work, but I think it's mostly the long-tail problem. The popular stuff is subsidizing the large number of very very esoteric. Unbundling might help.
- maxerickson 9y ago
  Can you explain the conflict you see? The editor would still pick reviewers based on reputation, they'd just get a lump sum along with the work.
- noobermin 9y ago
  I'd have to think of it, but I think reviewers would have a conflict-of-interest if they were paid based on the result of their reviews. If they are compensated to just review a paper either way I don't see the issue.
  - pishpash 9y ago
    Depends on what they believe the purpose of the review is. They'll be incented to do whatever gets them more reviews.
- anbende 9y ago
  You're mistaken. Paying reviewers would only cause a conflict of interest if it biases reviewers in a particular direction. Which direction would that be? Paying the reviewer doesn't incentivise them to accept or reject only to actually do the review. As it stands, in many fields reviewers are far from experts in the area they're reviewing but only in the same general discipline. Papers sail through review without proper statistical oversight, because what statistics expert is going to spend their time reviewing psych or bio articles when that's not their discipline? Well if we paid people to do what amounts to some of the most important work in science, maybe we'd get actual experts to do it!
  - pishpash 9y ago
    Or, you get charlatans who review for money.

Vinnl 9y ago

It's not that publishers do little (there's a lot that you don't usually see, but it's not the peer review), just that not all of it is that necessary, and that it still pales in comparison to the prices they charge.

monob 9y ago
In physics at least you need to write and typeset your own papers for the most part. Look at arxiv.org, that papers there are made purely by academics from start to finish and are already publication grade (if not better).
- Vinnl 9y ago
  Yes, physics (and most disciplines on arXiv) is relatively special. Although for some reason physicists still mostly submit there work to the journals in addition to placing them on arXiv... (That said, typesetting and writing are more and more often offloaded to academics, but there's also things like e.g. making HTML versions and system-readable versions [1] available, which is a cumbersome manual process.) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_for_Metadata_Harvesting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_for_Metadata_Harvesti...
  - noobermin 9y ago
    It depends on the field, but you're forgetting that arXiv does not do peer-review. Just because publishing is broken and yes peer-review has issues doesn't mean peer-review isn't needed.
    - Vinnl 9y ago
      On the one hand that's an important point, but on the other hand, the formal process of peer review as currently arranged by journals has many flaws, and the reason arXiv is so popular in fields like physics is that they want their results "out there" for others to use as soon as possible - i.e. people start to use it before it's been peer reviewed. In fact, the comments one receives after publishing it in arXiv often make its way into the submitted manuscript. So yes, peer review is useful, but it also often happens after publication at arXiv, outside of the journal submission.

pishpash 9y ago

Reviewers certainly shouldn't be the ones profiting from it, that would be an absurd conflict-of-interest. Publishers do some work, but I think it's mostly the long-tail problem. The popular stuff is subsidizing the large number of very very esoteric. Unbundling might help.

maxerickson 9y ago
Can you explain the conflict you see? The editor would still pick reviewers based on reputation, they'd just get a lump sum along with the work.
noobermin 9y ago
I'd have to think of it, but I think reviewers would have a conflict-of-interest if they were paid based on the result of their reviews. If they are compensated to just review a paper either way I don't see the issue.
- pishpash 9y ago
  Depends on what they believe the purpose of the review is. They'll be incented to do whatever gets them more reviews.
anbende 9y ago
You're mistaken. Paying reviewers would only cause a conflict of interest if it biases reviewers in a particular direction. Which direction would that be? Paying the reviewer doesn't incentivise them to accept or reject only to actually do the review. As it stands, in many fields reviewers are far from experts in the area they're reviewing but only in the same general discipline. Papers sail through review without proper statistical oversight, because what statistics expert is going to spend their time reviewing psych or bio articles when that's not their discipline? Well if we paid people to do what amounts to some of the most important work in science, maybe we'd get actual experts to do it!
- pishpash 9y ago
  Or, you get charlatans who review for money.