3 ms·
To me it sounds absurd to have to pay reviewers, when you have nothing guaranteed in return. If the publication would give insurance "we pay back 10'000 USD to
by rvnx 5y ago
To me it sounds absurd to have to pay reviewers, when you have nothing guaranteed in return.
If the publication would give insurance "we pay back 10'000 USD to the buyer of the paper in case we did a mistake because that's our guarantee of quality", then yes, but here, nothing guarantees you the quality / result, only that they tried to do reasonable efforts to somehow review and exfiltrate some of the most obviouses scams.
- kragen 5y agoI'm just thinking that if Nature didn't pay the reviewers (and I agree it is very unlikely that they did) then the quality of the reviewing probably is not a result of money flowing into Nature, whether from the authors or from the readers.
- diffeomorphism 5y agoReviewers are selected not picked out of a hat.... > ... we pay 10000 in case of a mistake ... Now please apply the same standard to software. > reasonable effort for many hours/days/weeks. Otherwise known as "work". Why is it absurd to pay for work?