3 ms·
The "infrastructure" is terrible software called Editorial Manager. It doesn't have any document annotation or collaboration features. It merely allows document
by dbcooper 1y ago
The "infrastructure" is terrible software called Editorial Manager. It doesn't have any document annotation or collaboration features. It merely allows documents to be uploaded and downloaded, and is a pain to work with.
The peer review process is almost entirely coordinated by unpaid associate editors. They make initial manuscript assessments, solicit reviewers, and moderate the review and response process.
"journal staff moving papers through the peer review system" may happen at a small number of prestige journals such as Advanced Materials, but for most Q1 journals it is all volunteer work. That is the business model that makes companies like Elsevier billions.
- riskassessment 1y agoInfrastucture is not the same as software. I was mostly referring to the human infrastructure (although editorialmanager is not free and until someone makes an open source alternative the supscription fees do support that license). And I would argue that the existence of a small number of prestige journals with scientific staff makes the entire system worth it, even if it means we have to deal with the existence of Elsevier and the like.
- sterlind 1y agoprestige journals are good for careers, but are they good for science? I don't think I've ever read a CS or math paper in Nature or Science that's blown me away. all the classics are on arxiv.
- riskassessment 1y agoThe value of good editorial staff may very well be less important in some fields. In the biomedical field subject-matter expertise still matters a lot in terms of discerning good research from seemingly good research. Which also means that prestige journals won't make research any more groundbreaking but if functioning properly should enrich for papers that are less likely to be junk science. I'd also argue that generic journals like Nature and Science are so unfocused that their staff probably provides little to no additional expertise and they rely entirely on peer review. Whereas staff at more specialized journals with lower but still very respectable impact factors are probably doing more informed work to select for quality science.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- nradov 1y agoThere's no need for "prestige journals". I have nothing really against them, but if they shut down today it wouldn't harm scientific progress at all.
- nativeit 1y agoPretty sure there are already FOSS options for file sharing, document management, revision management, process management, workflow management, and all-of-the-above management. Also, are publishing monopolies like Elsevier really all that necessary?
- sterlind 1y agoplatforms in general seem to be a pathological edge case for capitalism. capitalism is healthy when companies have to compete and innovate, rather than sitting on their assets like feudal lords. academic publishers and social media sites are almost pure rent-seeking, up there with patent trolls and private equity firms.