3 ms·

Nowhere here do I claim that editors or reviewers get paid.

by YuriNiyazov 3y ago

tgv 3y ago
By Grice's maxims, you do.
- YuriNiyazov 3y ago
  Thanks! I've now read https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~haroldfs/dravling/grice.html https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~haroldfs/dravling/grice.html and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_principle and am curious how exactly I've claimed that; I am sure you are correct but it's not obvious to me.
  - Qem 3y ago
    Maxim of relevance: "Be relevant — i.e., one should ensure that all the information they provide is relevant to the current exchange; therefore omitting any irrelevant information." You talked about the act of peer review as if it were a relevant source of cost, when in practice the work done by the peers is unpaid.
    - YuriNiyazov 3y ago
      The act of peer review is a relevant source of cost because at least at some publishers, the cost of shepherding a paper through peer review (not the actual peer review, but the process of peer review management - the costs of which I've already broken down elsewhere in the thread, and they are measured in hundreds of dollars of employee time) is borne by the publisher, not by the unpaid editors or the unpaid reviewers.
  - tgv 3y ago
    When you say "paying for peer review", the immediate interpretation would be that the peer reviewers get paid. By not phrasing it as "work related to getting peer review done" you violate the first maxim, effectively cementing that idea, which makes it a bit of a lie. Now, these maxims aren't laws, just descriptions/theories of how information is interpreted, but they work pretty well.
YeGoblynQueenne 3y ago
Didn't you say that it costs money to peer review 15 articles, and reject 14? It's unpaid reviewers and editors who do virtually all the work to peer review and accept or reject articles, so why does it cost money to do all that? Where does the money go? I mean, I'm interested to know. I peer review for a few journals and I never make a dime, so where does all the money go? Come to that, why don't I get paid? It takes days to review one journal article. Why is Springer or Elsevier making money from my toil and I make jack shit?
- YuriNiyazov 3y ago
  For greater detail, see my responses at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35657217 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35657217 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35657036 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35657036 I don't know specifically about Springer and Elsevier. From elsewhere in this thread, I learned that they expect the editors to do all the work recruiting reviewers and do it for free. I don't support that model. For publishers that assign internal staff that get paid a salary to help Editors recruit reviewers, it is far from unreasonable to spend $3K recruiting reviewers for 15 papers, even while the actual work of reviewing is unpaid.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 3y ago
    Sorry but I just don't believe that. Why would you pay people to do all that job when you can get an automated system to do it, or a researcher? That just sounds like trying to sell services that nobody needs and demanding to be paid for it.
    - YuriNiyazov 3y ago
      I am pretty sure we very quickly in this discussion jumped from "what the state of the industry is" to "what the state of the industry ought to be", a very common debate failure point. I am just telling you what the case is. When you say you don't believe me, you don't present an argument that demolishes my case and says why I am wrong, you are just telling me that the industry is not doing what it could be doing. But what you originally asked me is "I mean, I'm interested to know. I peer review for a few journals and I never make a dime, so where does all the money go?" I told you exactly where the money goes. You are entitled to an opinion that it's a bad way to spend the money, and that's fine. I happen to think that it's a suboptimal way to spend the money as well. But your question of "where does all the money go?" has been answered properly.

Nowhere here do I claim that editors or reviewers get paid.

tgv 3y ago

By Grice's maxims, you do.

YuriNiyazov 3y ago
Thanks! I've now read https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~haroldfs/dravling/grice.html https://www.sas.upenn.edu/~haroldfs/dravling/grice.html and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_principle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative_principle and am curious how exactly I've claimed that; I am sure you are correct but it's not obvious to me.
- Qem 3y ago
  Maxim of relevance: "Be relevant — i.e., one should ensure that all the information they provide is relevant to the current exchange; therefore omitting any irrelevant information." You talked about the act of peer review as if it were a relevant source of cost, when in practice the work done by the peers is unpaid.
  - YuriNiyazov 3y ago
    The act of peer review is a relevant source of cost because at least at some publishers, the cost of shepherding a paper through peer review (not the actual peer review, but the process of peer review management - the costs of which I've already broken down elsewhere in the thread, and they are measured in hundreds of dollars of employee time) is borne by the publisher, not by the unpaid editors or the unpaid reviewers.
- tgv 3y ago
  When you say "paying for peer review", the immediate interpretation would be that the peer reviewers get paid. By not phrasing it as "work related to getting peer review done" you violate the first maxim, effectively cementing that idea, which makes it a bit of a lie. Now, these maxims aren't laws, just descriptions/theories of how information is interpreted, but they work pretty well.

YeGoblynQueenne 3y ago

Didn't you say that it costs money to peer review 15 articles, and reject 14? It's unpaid reviewers and editors who do virtually all the work to peer review and accept or reject articles, so why does it cost money to do all that? Where does the money go? I mean, I'm interested to know. I peer review for a few journals and I never make a dime, so where does all the money go? Come to that, why don't I get paid? It takes days to review one journal article. Why is Springer or Elsevier making money from my toil and I make jack shit?

YuriNiyazov 3y ago
For greater detail, see my responses at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35657217 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35657217 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35657036 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35657036 I don't know specifically about Springer and Elsevier. From elsewhere in this thread, I learned that they expect the editors to do all the work recruiting reviewers and do it for free. I don't support that model. For publishers that assign internal staff that get paid a salary to help Editors recruit reviewers, it is far from unreasonable to spend $3K recruiting reviewers for 15 papers, even while the actual work of reviewing is unpaid.
- YeGoblynQueenne 3y ago
  Sorry but I just don't believe that. Why would you pay people to do all that job when you can get an automated system to do it, or a researcher? That just sounds like trying to sell services that nobody needs and demanding to be paid for it.
  - YuriNiyazov 3y ago
    I am pretty sure we very quickly in this discussion jumped from "what the state of the industry is" to "what the state of the industry ought to be", a very common debate failure point. I am just telling you what the case is. When you say you don't believe me, you don't present an argument that demolishes my case and says why I am wrong, you are just telling me that the industry is not doing what it could be doing. But what you originally asked me is "I mean, I'm interested to know. I peer review for a few journals and I never make a dime, so where does all the money go?" I told you exactly where the money goes. You are entitled to an opinion that it's a bad way to spend the money, and that's fine. I happen to think that it's a suboptimal way to spend the money as well. But your question of "where does all the money go?" has been answered properly.