3 ms·
> Reviewers work for free. If journals were operating on a shoestring budget, I might be able to understand why academics are expected to do peer review for fr
by ksenzee 2y ago
> Reviewers work for free.
If journals were operating on a shoestring budget, I might be able to understand why academics are expected to do peer review for free. As it is, it makes no sense whatsoever. Elsevier pulls down huge amounts of money and still manages to command free labor.
- withinboredom 2y agoI think it has to be this way, right? Otherwise a paid reviewer will have obvious biases from the company.
- ksenzee 2y agoIt seems to me that paying them for their time would remove bias, rather than add it.
- nativeit 2y agoHow is that?
- flir 2y agoI guess the sensible response is "what bias does being paid by Elsevier add that working for free for Elsevier doesn't add?" The external bias is clear to me (maybe a paper undermines something you're about to publish, for example) but I honestly can't see much additional bias in adding cash to a relationship that already exists.
- ksenzee 2y agoExactly. At least if the work is paid, the incentive to do it is clearer.