4 ms·

First, I'd question that you really need to incentivize it. People - myself included - are doing research in a topic because they are passionate about it and mo

First, I'd question that you really need to incentivize it. People - myself included - are doing research in a topic because they are passionate about it and most are more than happy to look at new research and ideas about things they are passionate about. Will you really need incentivization to get people to interact with the topic they have devoted their life towards studying? Let's say however that you need incentivization, I suppose one approach would be at a legislative level where you require all researchers publish on a decentralized open access platform where every citizen - they are the one's funding the research after all - can freely and uninhibitedly access the information.

philipodonnell 9y ago
> Will you really need incentivization to get people to interact with the topic they have devoted their life towards studying? Perhaps not. But people keep telling me in this thread that reviewers work because the journals expect them to or they will get future papers rejected/lose conference access, not for the love of the topic or because they get paid or otherwise any kind of special visibility for it. I wonder whether an approach that promised only publicity for having done reviews or relying on altruism would really produce the quality of reviews necessary. > I suppose one approach would be at a legislative level where you require all researchers publish on a decentralized open access platform where every citizen - they are the one's funding the research after all - can freely and uninhibitedly access the information. That's not really incentivizing the _reviewers_, though, right?