4 ms·
Oh dear, the burden of organizing peer-review and of consolidating some sort of "quality" stamp (I said "some sort of") is much more expensive than "nothing".
by pfortuny 6y ago
Oh dear, the burden of organizing peer-review and of consolidating some sort of "quality" stamp (I said "some sort of") is much more expensive than "nothing".
I am not pro-Elsevier, I am just stating a fact.
- meej 6y agoAnd yet much of the work of peer review is done on a volunteer basis.
- pfortuny 6y agoOrganizing it and providing the "quality stamp" is what I was referring to.
- chrisseaton 6y ago> Organizing it and providing the "quality stamp" is what I was referring to. Lol that's also done by volunteers.
- underdeserver 6y agoOK, maybe I exaggerated when I said nothing. Per subject, per journal, the same person who edits a journal today at Elsevier could do the same thing for the same salary at a university consortium-backed non-profit.
- pfortuny 6y agoYes, per subject per journal but then how many non-profits do you need? How do you organize them? How do you get a coordinated best-effort, etc... I mean: corporations do not exist in a vacuum, they (usually) DO provide benefits to the society also. I insist: I am not trying to defend abuses, I am trying to clarify that a for-profit corporation dealing with those many editorial issues is not bad per se.
- foepys 6y agoThe only people getting paid in the reviewing process are the journals that are only coordinating the reviews. Actual reviewers (aka other researchers in the same field as the paper) are working for free.
- pfortuny 6y agoI know: I just stated that "organizing" it was expensive. I do know that reviewing is free (I have done it).
- dwheeler 6y agoOrganizing is not expensive. What is expensive is paying the typesetters to place the movable type in various places, and to create plates with the various graphics. Oh wait, we don't need to do that anymore. At this point, there is no rational justification for what Elsevier is doing now except greed. They actually have some other services that makes sense, but this lock on academic papers is simply a historical accident that is no longer relevant.
- vegesm 6y agoIt's time consuming and that is money (granted, Elsevier still gets more money than what is paid to editors)
- nihil75 6y agoI don't think that's true 100% of the time. There are review-as-a-service solutions offered (and charged for) by the publishers.
- r00fus 6y agoPerhaps this is the real change that's needed. Getting a review structure that rewards really thorough reviews, monetarily. Those reviewers then become like YT stars where yes, everyone can review, but these reviewers are top-notch. The payment structure would depend on fees from accessing the works or fees for subscription to access. That might finally break (or finally justif) Elsevier and their ilk.
- manquer 6y agoWhy though? It is not like you don’t have access to high quality cheap talent in the form of RAs/TAs etc why cannot that part be done by students ? It will also actually help them learn their subjects
- buboard 6y agoWikipedia editing doesn't cost much. Open, public review is free anyway. We would need a prestige-setting institution, i m sure we can come up with a substitute.