4 ms·
Personally I don’t see the quid pro quo nature of peer review (you review in return for your stuff being reviewed) as a problem. But I dislike the fact that the
by dna_polymerase 7y ago
Personally I don’t see the quid pro quo nature of peer review (you review in return for your stuff being reviewed) as a problem. But I dislike the fact that the publishers limit access to something that others provided without compensation. Seriously their subscription models are outrageous, nothing they provide alongside the actual content makes it worth it.
- Calloutman 7y agoYou're still providing a valuable service for free. Why can't everyone get paid?
- mschuster91 7y agoReviewers are getting paid from the university, as are the paper authors. The problem is that the journals exploit the taxpayers and grant providers.
- chdlr 7y agoI would disagree for the first part: Review usually does not happen during paid hours or is even somehow formally accredited by universities.
- markus92 7y agoAt my university, reviewing is explicitly mentioned to be on your own time: we cannot write any hours for it.
- pastage 7y agoThat honestly seems like a bigger problem, if researchers are not paid for reviewing who will do it?
- prepend 7y agoMy experience is that reviewers do this as part of their duties and takes place during work hours.
- nelgaard 7y agoUniversities pay you for teaching and researching. Reviewing is part of the researching.
- jbay808 7y agoNot all reviewers even work for universities. Some of us are in industry, and our companies certainly don't pay us to anonymously review scientific papers.