4 ms·
If you’re gonna say you have to pay for reviews, it might be a bad precedent that might establish “professional reviewers” whose main job becomes this. Already
by ramraj07 3y ago
If you’re gonna say you have to pay for reviews, it might be a bad precedent that might establish “professional reviewers” whose main job becomes this. Already reviewing papers is become a stupidly important criteria in green card applications and you see a huge deluge of postdocs emailing editors requesting papers to review (though the top journals will never give a manuscript to a postdoc).
- auggierose 3y agoNo, what I am saying is that proper reviews are expensive, and that cost should be made explicit. How that should be done, I don't know. Giving prestige to reviews is difficult, given that reviews are anonymous. Personally, I feel reviews should be public and non-anonymous, just like the paper is. If the argument against this is that scientists are so petty that they will hold a negative review against you, well. Even more reason to make everything public, because why would you then trust petty scientists to do proper reviews?
- kelipso 3y agoHah, the power dynamics involved will be brutal with non-anonymous review. You have new phd students reviewing papers submitted by tenured profs with decades of experience and connections and ability to impact their careers. People will be people and so on.
- auggierose 3y agoMaybe new PhD students shouldn't be reviewing papers in the first place. And people will be people is EXACTLY why you need everything to be public.