4 ms·

The only people getting paid in the reviewing process are the journals that are only coordinating the reviews. Actual reviewers (aka other researchers in the sa

by foepys 6y ago

The 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 ago
I know: I just stated that "organizing" it was expensive. I do know that reviewing is free (I have done it).
- dwheeler 6y ago
  Organizing 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 ago
    It's time consuming and that is money (granted, Elsevier still gets more money than what is paid to editors)
nihil75 6y ago
I 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 ago
Perhaps 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.
- mattkrause 6y ago
  "Rockstar reviewers" seem like a cure that's almost as bad as the disease. Some scientific fields already have a problem with groupthink, with a few well-defined and vigorously-opposed schools of thought. I would vastly prefer a broader reviewer pool to the usual suspects from the same few labs. Everybody likes money, but I'm also not sure that's the way to go either. It would be great if reviewing directly impacted people's academic/research careers; I suspect the ability to review well is highly correlated with the ability to successfully run a research group. However, there are lots of thorny issues involving power and interpersonal relationships.
yurlungur 6y ago
That is largely correct, however the editors are very key to maintaining this process and especially the standards. A prestiged academic will not blindly accept any review request without having a level of trust in the process and also the coordinator. Reviewing others' work is rather tedious and I think it will be a challenge for any fully open platform to demonstrate that it will not be a waste of time to do peer reviews on them.

by foepys 6y ago

pfortuny 6y ago

I know: I just stated that "organizing" it was expensive. I do know that reviewing is free (I have done it).

dwheeler 6y ago
Organizing 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 ago
  It's time consuming and that is money (granted, Elsevier still gets more money than what is paid to editors)

nihil75 6y ago

I 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 ago

Perhaps 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.

mattkrause 6y ago
"Rockstar reviewers" seem like a cure that's almost as bad as the disease. Some scientific fields already have a problem with groupthink, with a few well-defined and vigorously-opposed schools of thought. I would vastly prefer a broader reviewer pool to the usual suspects from the same few labs. Everybody likes money, but I'm also not sure that's the way to go either. It would be great if reviewing directly impacted people's academic/research careers; I suspect the ability to review well is highly correlated with the ability to successfully run a research group. However, there are lots of thorny issues involving power and interpersonal relationships.

yurlungur 6y ago

That is largely correct, however the editors are very key to maintaining this process and especially the standards. A prestiged academic will not blindly accept any review request without having a level of trust in the process and also the coordinator. Reviewing others' work is rather tedious and I think it will be a challenge for any fully open platform to demonstrate that it will not be a waste of time to do peer reviews on them.