3 ms·

> Because those people are already being paid anyway - their full time jobs, whether that’s PhD student, lecturer, professor, or industrial researcher, includes

> Because those people are already being paid anyway - their full time jobs, whether that’s PhD student, lecturer, professor, or industrial researcher, includes the job of reviewing and editing for publications. This is inaccurate. This is not a part of a postdoc's job description, for example, in the UK. The university does not pay you to do this - you have to review on top of your day job.

dsjoerg 8y ago
What do you mean "have to"? What happens if you don't?
- randomsearch 8y ago
  Turn of phrase here, fair point. I meant "if you want to review, then it will be additional time outside of doing your paid work." Second question is an interesting point: what happens if you don't review? I can tell you that it is certainly the case that a lot of academics don't do reviewing. Given the amount of reviewing I and my colleagues do, there must be others who are not doing their fair share (say 3 x your submission rate) of reviews. What are the consequences of not reviewing? Perhaps you can be seen as a freeloader, some social cost, but mostly people just won't know unless you're replying to them directly.
chrisseaton 8y ago
If your job is an academic then of course the job implicitly includes reviewing papers. That's what being an academic involves. It's part of your normal paid day-job if you have an academic position, either in industry or in a university. Do you think academics and industrial researchers take holiday when they have to travel to a program committee meeting? No of course not, they do it during work time and are paid for it and their employer pays for flights etc. While I was in academia I was specifically tasked with reviewing papers for an external conference, and so were all my colleagues.
- logifail 8y ago
  [Speaking from my experiences as a PhD student] once an academic is sufficiently senior they can do what they damn well like. My boss came in late, took long lunch breaks, and went home early. Back to the topic: if he received papers to be reviewed, he gave them to his post-docs.

dsjoerg 8y ago

What do you mean "have to"? What happens if you don't?

randomsearch 8y ago
Turn of phrase here, fair point. I meant "if you want to review, then it will be additional time outside of doing your paid work." Second question is an interesting point: what happens if you don't review? I can tell you that it is certainly the case that a lot of academics don't do reviewing. Given the amount of reviewing I and my colleagues do, there must be others who are not doing their fair share (say 3 x your submission rate) of reviews. What are the consequences of not reviewing? Perhaps you can be seen as a freeloader, some social cost, but mostly people just won't know unless you're replying to them directly.

chrisseaton 8y ago

If your job is an academic then of course the job implicitly includes reviewing papers. That's what being an academic involves. It's part of your normal paid day-job if you have an academic position, either in industry or in a university. Do you think academics and industrial researchers take holiday when they have to travel to a program committee meeting? No of course not, they do it during work time and are paid for it and their employer pays for flights etc. While I was in academia I was specifically tasked with reviewing papers for an external conference, and so were all my colleagues.

logifail 8y ago
[Speaking from my experiences as a PhD student] once an academic is sufficiently senior they can do what they damn well like. My boss came in late, took long lunch breaks, and went home early. Back to the topic: if he received papers to be reviewed, he gave them to his post-docs.