4 ms·

I really don't think the journal model works well anymore. It used to be that distributing papers was burdensome, so they compiled them into journals and profe

I really don't think the journal model works well anymore. It used to be that distributing papers was burdensome, so they compiled them into journals and professionals paid for a subscription. Built into the cost was peer review -- they couldn't just publish ALL the articles, because there was limited space, so they had to have professional reviewers filter out all but the "best." So now that distribution has been solved, the only value-add that a journal can claim is that filtering process, which ostensibly is costly. It all hinges on the question of whether peer review can happen without compensation. I think it's pretty well-established now that peer review without compensation happens constantly. Welcome to the internet, right? So the correct new model is something like a digg/HN system that aggregates articles from various fields, and allows peers to review, respond to, and upvote important papers. I think it'd need to be more complex because of voter credibility concerns, but it seems workable. I can't say the same for the current journal model.

yummyfajitas 17y ago
I think it's pretty well-established now that peer review without compensation happens constantly. Welcome to the internet, right? As far as I know, even before the internet era, you never got paid for referee reports. I've certainly never been paid for one, though I've only been writing them since 2006.
- ggchappell 17y ago
  That is correct. Academic journal article peer review has always been unpaid.
alexgartrell 17y ago
hacker news of academic papers? edit: actually, this sounds awesome. Is it out there? You'd have to change the rules somewhat for more persistence and maybe moderate the submissions (for general quality). Grouping them would also be good. edit again: Does anyone want to do this?
- paulgb 17y ago
  There was a hacker news for papers, although it didn't take off. The papers were usually ones that were already published though. (The server seems to have been taken down, but here is the description page http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~ad/academic-hacker-news.html http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~ad/academic-hacker-news.html )
  - alexgartrell 17y ago
    I'm referring to something more like hacker news in spirit (good papers get upvoted) but much more constrained. Give voting to qualified academics (maybe fractional votes to grad students as well?) with more persistence and multiple categories/tags.

yummyfajitas 17y ago

I think it's pretty well-established now that peer review without compensation happens constantly. Welcome to the internet, right? As far as I know, even before the internet era, you never got paid for referee reports. I've certainly never been paid for one, though I've only been writing them since 2006.

ggchappell 17y ago
That is correct. Academic journal article peer review has always been unpaid.

alexgartrell 17y ago

hacker news of academic papers? edit: actually, this sounds awesome. Is it out there? You'd have to change the rules somewhat for more persistence and maybe moderate the submissions (for general quality). Grouping them would also be good. edit again: Does anyone want to do this?

paulgb 17y ago
There was a hacker news for papers, although it didn't take off. The papers were usually ones that were already published though. (The server seems to have been taken down, but here is the description page http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~ad/academic-hacker-news.html http://www.cs.toronto.edu/~ad/academic-hacker-news.html )
- alexgartrell 17y ago
  I'm referring to something more like hacker news in spirit (good papers get upvoted) but much more constrained. Give voting to qualified academics (maybe fractional votes to grad students as well?) with more persistence and multiple categories/tags.