4 ms·

For greater detail, see my responses at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35657217 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35657217 and https://news.ycombina

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.

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.