4 ms·

> 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 tha

• 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?
    • chrisseaton 8y ago
      People are asking things like > How do peer reviews happen, then, if nobody gets paid to do them? They're not asking about the publisher paying. They're asking about being paid at all.
      • jamesrcole 8y ago
        Where? You claimed "It's all through this thread, and every thread on this topic", so it shouldn't be hard to find plenty of examples. The example you gave is not an example of it. Notice the "if" in it? Go read that comment again, and read the comment it is replying to. The person is not expressing a positive belief. They're not familiar with the system, are trying to make sense of the parent comment's statement, and are asking how it works.
  • mcv 8y ago
    But that's the point: the reviewers are paid, but by the tax payer, not by the publisher. The publisher profits, while the tax payer has to pay 3 times to finally get what they paid for. The publisher is getting a free ride here.