4 ms·
"Review" in the context of your link means "referee." I don't think that most researchers would view writing a review article for Nature as "volunteer work" bec
by grayclhn 11y ago
"Review" in the context of your link means "referee." I don't think that most researchers would view writing a review article for Nature as "volunteer work" because the career benefits of the publication are pretty high.
So, going by the link, I don't think this is a change in his position on open access, but I also don't think that his position involved as much self-sacrifice as you'd assumed.
edit: I don't know the field well, but these review articles usually recycle a lot of material from review articles the author wrote a year or two before. The contents of the article might be basically available for free already.
- thisisdave 11y ago> I don't think that most researchers would view writing a review article for Nature as "volunteer work" I was referring more specifically to the fact that Nature had to enlist volunteers to referee the paper he wrote. I was curious whether he was okay with that even though he wouldn't volunteer himself, if his position on non-open journals had changed, or if there was some other explanation.