3 ms·

> Because those people are already being paid anyway What about when the tax payers fund the research and then they have to pay to access it? Didn't they "alre

> Because those people are already being paid anyway What about when the tax payers fund the research and then they have to pay to access it? Didn't they "already pay for it"?

chrisseaton 8y ago
You're asking a totally separate question - you're asking 'since tax payers funded the research shouldn't they be able to see the output?' That's a great question. But the question I was replying to was 'who is paying the reviewers'. The answer is that their employers are.
- FabHK 8y ago
  The question wasn't "who is paying them?", the question was "why aren't the publishers paying them?". And that is a crucial question, and not answered by the observation that they are already paid by others.
  - chrisseaton 8y ago
    The answer to 'why' is that no money changes hands for any review - not to pay to get a review for your paper, and not to review a paper for someone else. It's a social system. You 'pay' for reviews of your papers, by reviewing other people's papers. All the publisher does is connect people up and produce the final product. You can argue that the cost to subscribe is therefore too high for that service. Fine, it may be so! But saying 'why don't they pay their reviewers' is to misunderstand what the entire setup is here.
    - arethuza 8y ago
      Creating a "market" for reviews would be a terrible idea - I agree that the reviewing part of the process seems to work pretty well (or at least did when I was last involved, which is a while now). Edit: The bureaucracy of charging for reviews would be bad enough - but I suspect perverse incentives would soon arise as reviewing would soon be seen as a revenue generator to be maximised and a cost to be minimised.
    - mcv 8y ago
      But the publisher is the one making the profit here. From other people's work, that other people pay for. The publisher doesn't add any real value to the process. They charge a high price for people to access other people's work. At no point does the publisher pay anyone for anything, yet they do get all the profit. It's pretty clear why this is a stupid system, isn't it? Simply saying "but that's the way it is" is not an answer. It's the problem.
      - chrisseaton 8y ago
        > It's pretty clear why this is a stupid system, isn't it? Maybe! I'm just explaining why the reviewers aren't doing the work unpaid on their own time, which is a misconception people seem to have. Fewer misconceptions is better for the discussion about the remaining issues like whether the system is stupid or not.
        jamesrcole 8y ago
        > I'm just explaining why the reviewers aren't doing the work unpaid on their own time, which is a misconception people seem to have. I don't recall seeing that misconception. I had a quick look in the comments here and I don't see it. Can you see any examples?
        chrisseaton 8y ago
        > why don’t publishers pay > No reviewers are ever paid either > reviewers are never paid > Nobody in the review or author role gets paid It's all through this thread, and every thread on this topic.
        jamesrcole 8y ago
        These are all complaints about the reviewers never being paid by the publisher, which is a completely different and completely valid point. The complaints are all about the publisher. Have you ever seen a complaint that's simply about having to do peer review itself without being paid?
mcv 8y ago
I think it would make a lot of sense for countries to have laws stating that the results of publicly funded research must be publicly available. It's bizarre to allow a profit-driven business to monopolise and exploit it without paying for it.

> Because those people are already being paid anyway What about when the tax payers fund the research and then they have to pay to access it? Didn't they "already pay for it"?

chrisseaton 8y ago

You're asking a totally separate question - you're asking 'since tax payers funded the research shouldn't they be able to see the output?' That's a great question. But the question I was replying to was 'who is paying the reviewers'. The answer is that their employers are.

FabHK 8y ago
The question wasn't "who is paying them?", the question was "why aren't the publishers paying them?". And that is a crucial question, and not answered by the observation that they are already paid by others.
- chrisseaton 8y ago
  The answer to 'why' is that no money changes hands for any review - not to pay to get a review for your paper, and not to review a paper for someone else. It's a social system. You 'pay' for reviews of your papers, by reviewing other people's papers. All the publisher does is connect people up and produce the final product. You can argue that the cost to subscribe is therefore too high for that service. Fine, it may be so! But saying 'why don't they pay their reviewers' is to misunderstand what the entire setup is here.
  - arethuza 8y ago
    Creating a "market" for reviews would be a terrible idea - I agree that the reviewing part of the process seems to work pretty well (or at least did when I was last involved, which is a while now). Edit: The bureaucracy of charging for reviews would be bad enough - but I suspect perverse incentives would soon arise as reviewing would soon be seen as a revenue generator to be maximised and a cost to be minimised.
  - mcv 8y ago
    But the publisher is the one making the profit here. From other people's work, that other people pay for. The publisher doesn't add any real value to the process. They charge a high price for people to access other people's work. At no point does the publisher pay anyone for anything, yet they do get all the profit. It's pretty clear why this is a stupid system, isn't it? Simply saying "but that's the way it is" is not an answer. It's the problem.
    - chrisseaton 8y ago
      > It's pretty clear why this is a stupid system, isn't it? Maybe! I'm just explaining why the reviewers aren't doing the work unpaid on their own time, which is a misconception people seem to have. Fewer misconceptions is better for the discussion about the remaining issues like whether the system is stupid or not.
      - jamesrcole 8y ago
        > I'm just explaining why the reviewers aren't doing the work unpaid on their own time, which is a misconception people seem to have. I don't recall seeing that misconception. I had a quick look in the comments here and I don't see it. Can you see any examples?
        chrisseaton 8y ago
        > why don’t publishers pay > No reviewers are ever paid either > reviewers are never paid > Nobody in the review or author role gets paid It's all through this thread, and every thread on this topic.
        jamesrcole 8y ago
        These are all complaints about the reviewers never being paid by the publisher, which is a completely different and completely valid point. The complaints are all about the publisher. Have you ever seen a complaint that's simply about having to do peer review itself without being paid?

mcv 8y ago

I think it would make a lot of sense for countries to have laws stating that the results of publicly funded research must be publicly available. It's bizarre to allow a profit-driven business to monopolise and exploit it without paying for it.