4 ms·
I'm guessing he wasn't an economist by profession then ;-) Seriously, this seems like a great solution to the problem highlighted in the article - peer review i
by duncan_bayne 12y ago
I'm guessing he wasn't an economist by profession then ;-) Seriously, this seems like a great solution to the problem highlighted in the article - peer review is a slow process when left to non market forces. Seems analogous to hiring a consultant to review your code.
- p4bl0 12y agoSorry but no. You can't say that. This "solution" might solve something that has been highlighted in the article, but who said it was a problem? I'd rather have a very slow but rigorous and scientific review process than what is offered here. Good science should not care for a few month of review instead of a few weeks. If the presented results seem important to the point of needing to be urgently out there, you can always upload a preprint to arXiv or a similar repository before or during the review process. Paid for fast peer-reviewing is WRONG. It prioritizes the science done in rich laboratories of the rich countries. That's not how science is supposed to work. It's stupid to think that introducing this "market forces" into the reviewing process won't have an effect on its output (and I'm not talking about speed here).
- duncan_bayne 12y ago> I'd rather have a very slow but rigorous and scientific review process than what is offered here. Yes, but clearly, others disagree. They'd rather have rapid review and are happy to pay for it. Also, consider medical research. Quite literally, lives will be saved by faster review.