4 ms·
Because being a peer reviewer shouldn’t be done for free? Do you like being paid to work? Because Nature has established themselves as a premier journal over th
by eanzenberg 8y ago
Because being a peer reviewer shouldn’t be done for free? Do you like being paid to work? Because Nature has established themselves as a premier journal over the the past 150 years and are known for their quality?
Or maybe I’m just taking crazy pills..
- etrautmann 8y agoPeer reviewers are not ever paid, making this whole arrangement somewhat bizarre and unsavory to reviewers and authors alike.
- hannob 8y agoThere's a strange thing, there seems to be a universal rule of Open Access discussions: There will always be someone who defends publishers based on not knowing anything about how scientific publishing works.
- svat 8y agoMy favourite article about open access, about the Journal of Machine Learning Research, and really the ultimate smackdown, all done very politely: https://blogs.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2012/03/06/an-efficient-journal/ https://blogs.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2012/03/06/an-efficient-j...
- bnegreve 8y agoThat's the problem: publishers don't pay reviewers but charge for their work.
- sn41 8y agoPeer review is not paid work. Mostly it is done as an overhead that is understood as part of being an active researcher. I would even venture to say that most researchers will be against the idea of paid reviews, just like Amazon found out that paid product reviews are a very bad idea.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- kortilla 8y ago>Or maybe I’m just taking crazy pills.. You are. Where did you ever get the idea that nature pays for reviews?
- lenticular 8y agoHaha, reviewers getting paid. That's a good one. This journal charges the authors for Pete's sake.