5 ms·
The 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 "se
by a3_nm 8y ago
The 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.