3 ms·
If 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
by lixtra 8y ago
If 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.