4 ms·
> Obviously the benefit from doing the reviews is bigger than their preference of Open Access. Researchers don't usually benefit from doing peer review: they d
by Vinnl 8y ago
> Obviously the benefit from doing the reviews is bigger than their preference of Open Access.
Researchers don't usually benefit from doing peer review: they don't get paid for it, and it eats time they could spend doing research. It's more of a sense of duty they have that they're "supposed" to do those reviews, and I can't really fault them for that.
(Though I would very much encourage them to only review for fully Open Access journals, and respond to review requests with invitations to submit the work to those journals.)
- lixtra 8y agoIf they don’t benefit in some way why do they review? Edit: - sorry, I missed the sense of duty. Thanks for pointing it out below. - added don’t
- Vinnl 8y agoAgain: a sense of duty, it's considered part of their job. They can certainly choose not to do it, or not to do it for paywalled journals. However, when I suggest that, I often get the reply that that's not fair to those who submit to those journals - often early-career researchers whose career could be greatly helped by publishing there. And again, I can't fault them for that. (I assume you meant to say "don't benefit"?)
- buhics 8y agoI don't buy the sense of duty argument. It's good for the career. Until the appearance of the notion of open peer-review, the reviews were not public and thrown away by the editor after the publishing decision. Concerning the sense of duty, nobody stops anybody to review a work and post it somewhere publicly accessible. However, that's rare to see.
- a3_nm 8y agoThe benefit to reviewing is that it's frowned upon to publish in a conference/journal if you don't review for them. So academics are not just motivated by a "sense of duty": if they don't accept to review then it can become harder for them to publish (which has significant career benefits). So if you don't review for closed-access venues (which I try to do), you are pressured into not publishing there: and not publishing in closed-access venues is difficult as most papers are collaborations, and usually your co-authors do not share your convictions.
- Vinnl 8y agoYes, I guess that's true, too. But even researchers who do boycott some journals sometimes indicate that they still review for those journals for the above reasons.
- shawnz 8y ago> most papers are collaborations, and usually your co-authors do not share your convictions. Can't you just publish in two journals then?
- kaitai 8y agoMost journals have as a condition of publication that the article is not submitted or published anywhere else, if that's what you're thinking about.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- alexmlamb2 8y agoAt least in my experience, I don't see any pressure to not submit if you don't review (I'm in ML though, so could be different in other fields). I think why people review is: -You should be reading more papers anyway and we like doing it, so why not take it as an obligation? -I assume that eventually it helps one to get selected to be an area chair or something along those lines.
- jshowa3 8y agoResearches benefit from doing peer review so that quality research is maintained. Its part of their job. I don't get "paid" to put in expense reports for trips on the job, but I have to do them because its a job responsibility.
- Vinnl 8y agoRight, as I said in response to a sibling comment: "a sense of duty, it's considered part of their job." The sense of duty part is that they could theoretically get away with it if they didn't do it.