6 ms·

> Still need paid reviewers. Why, exactly? Wouldn't the article's solution be a better way of going about it?

• aurizon 9y ago
  Meet the 'tragedy of the commons'. The Elsevier way is peer glory, cash is the best replacement. With no persuasive/coercive force - why would they do it. Look how Linux does well in an open way for stand alone small apps. Linux can not compete with the microsoft or oracle machines. Canonical has done very well and has funded many of the large programming tasks that the catherd could not manage.
  • Mononokay 9y ago
    > With no persuasive/coercive force - why would they do it. The article says it should be required to submit a paper in the first place - I'd imagine that'd be incentive enough.
    • aurizon 9y ago
      Watch our for circles of reviewers who are not capable, but are willing to act as reviewers on each other in a network to validate their group. Far fetched??, not at all, it had been done and continues to be done. Elsevier et all, did a good job with their peers and glory reward method, so a system that replaces it need to be well thought out in depth to stand permanently. Elsevier just sucks and sucks and sucks, like US drug makers