4 ms·

> Which, if any, should I read? Excuse me, but this decision is not being made by the publisher. It's being made by hard working volunteer reviewers, who are t

> Which, if any, should I read? Excuse me, but this decision is not being made by the publisher. It's being made by hard working volunteer reviewers, who are typically not paid by the publisher. These reviewers are the people actually deciding what papers are accepted or rejected, and thus deciding which you read, and they deserve credit for it. I think you mean to point out that the publishers are the abstract entities to which prestige is attached (often for historical reasons), which they certainly are. Though that's slowly starting to change, as researchers move towards open access and away from for-profit publishers.

thaumasiotes 8y ago
Why would the reviewers deserve credit for the decision to honor or not honor a paper? Nobody cares or knows who they are. Nobody cares what they think. What people care about is whether the paper got published. If it was published over the objections of 80% of reviewers, nobody cares about that either. The decision to publish is made by the publisher, and that's what people care about.
- justinpombrio 8y ago
  > The decision to publish is made by the publisher, and that's what people care about. I'm saying that it isn't. Modulo weird edge cases, the publisher delegates that decision to reviewers. If they choose to reject a paper, then it gets rejected. Unless I'm really mistaken about how things work. My only first-hand experience is in PL, a field in which we publish in conferences rather than journals. I've sat in on a PC meeting where the decision to accept or reject papers was made. In cases where the reviews were clear, the paper was accepted or rejected without fanfare. For borderline papers, the decision was made through discussion among the reviewers who had reviewed that paper and the PC. I don't think the PC members were paid for it. The reviewers certainly weren't. > Nobody cares what they think. I care what they think. It would be really interesting and informative to have a system where paper reviews were public. EDIT: What's your experience with publishers? Do you know more than I do?

thaumasiotes 8y ago

Why would the reviewers deserve credit for the decision to honor or not honor a paper? Nobody cares or knows who they are. Nobody cares what they think. What people care about is whether the paper got published. If it was published over the objections of 80% of reviewers, nobody cares about that either. The decision to publish is made by the publisher, and that's what people care about.

justinpombrio 8y ago
> The decision to publish is made by the publisher, and that's what people care about. I'm saying that it isn't. Modulo weird edge cases, the publisher delegates that decision to reviewers. If they choose to reject a paper, then it gets rejected. Unless I'm really mistaken about how things work. My only first-hand experience is in PL, a field in which we publish in conferences rather than journals. I've sat in on a PC meeting where the decision to accept or reject papers was made. In cases where the reviews were clear, the paper was accepted or rejected without fanfare. For borderline papers, the decision was made through discussion among the reviewers who had reviewed that paper and the PC. I don't think the PC members were paid for it. The reviewers certainly weren't. > Nobody cares what they think. I care what they think. It would be really interesting and informative to have a system where paper reviews were public. EDIT: What's your experience with publishers? Do you know more than I do?