Peer review: the end of an error?
the-tls.co.uk
Peer review: the end of an error?
1–10 of 80 posts
Re: Peer review: the end of an error?
#2The initial examples the author uses really do reflect the magnitude of the third problem. All of them were big breakthrough results in their fields - and hence people cared enough to do proper reviews - especially in the latter two cases. As an academic, I have participated in reviews of papers that I would have never otherwise read, but could still contribute to the process. Without something pushing all academics to participate in the system, then a more open solution risks moving science even closer to “only interesting problems/solutions/results get published”.
Re: Peer review: the end of an error?
#3> Remarkably, we have arrived at a system where academics feel a moral obligation to perform the thankless task of reviewing the work of other academics, anonymously and unpaid. This undoubtedly makes the literature better than it would otherwise have been, and ensures at least one reader for each paper.
I'm afraid it doesn't ensure that all papers will be read. Some papers can attract more attention, some papers can even receive too much comments with relevant comments being drown in the sea of observations.
Re: Peer review: the end of an error?
#4This article says that peer review is unpaid - it isn't.
If you are an academic or work in industrial research, it's part of your paid job to do peer review as part of the community. You are paid for it - it's part of your job and it's normal to do it during work hours.
Re: Peer review: the end of an error?
#5This article says that peer review is unpaid - it isn't. If you are an academic or work in industrial research, it's part of your paid job to do peer review as part of the community. You are paid for it - it's part of your job and it's normal to do it during work hours.
Although reviewership is a useful thing that gets put on CVs, I can't think of a position I've ever seen where "review X papers" a year is part of the job requirement.
A more salient point about why it is important to note that peer review is unpaid is that academics, as authors, submit their work---for free---to a journal, where reviewers review it for free, and then the journal turns around and sells the article for $35 apiece.
Re: Peer review: the end of an error?
#6This article says that peer review is unpaid - it isn't. If you are an academic or work in industrial research, it's part of your paid job to do peer review as part of the community. You are paid for it - it's part of your job and it's normal to do it during work hours.
It is unpaid. A lot of reviewing for conferences is actually being done by Ph.D. students. They have to do it, whether they are on a stipend or not. Equally, a lot of reviewing is being done by (in some cases, former) academics whose current occupation does not provide resources (time) for doing peer review.
Re: Peer review: the end of an error?
#7One hopes the present system will go away: http://sappingattention.blogspot.com/2017/09/peer-review-is-...
The problems are in some ways even worse in the humanities: http://www.chronicle.com/article/The-New-Intellectuals/23835... than the sciences. Or see https://jakeseliger.com/2013/02/12/a-lot-of-academic-researc... .
Re: Peer review: the end of an error?
#8This article says that peer review is unpaid - it isn't. If you are an academic or work in industrial research, it's part of your paid job to do peer review as part of the community. You are paid for it - it's part of your job and it's normal to do it during work hours.
It is unpaid. A lot of reviewing for conferences is actually being done by Ph.D. students. They have to do it, whether they are on a stipend or not. Equally, a lot of reviewing is being done by (in some cases, former) academics whose current occupation does not provide resources (time) for doing peer review.
> A lot of reviewing for conferences is actually being done by Ph.D. students. They have to do it, whether they are on a stipend or not.
Most (all?) PhD students in science and engineering are on fellowships, at least in the US. Major research universities will not admit unfunded PhD students.
Re: Peer review: the end of an error?
#9This article says that peer review is unpaid - it isn't. If you are an academic or work in industrial research, it's part of your paid job to do peer review as part of the community. You are paid for it - it's part of your job and it's normal to do it during work hours.
Although reviewership is a useful thing that gets put on CVs, I can't think of a position I've ever seen where "review X papers" a year is part of the job requirement. A more salient point about why it is important to note that peer review is unpaid is that academics, as authors, submit their work---for free---to a journal, where reviewers review it for free, and then the journal turns around and sells the article fo…
> I can't think of a position I've ever seen where "review X papers" a year is part of the job requirement.
I work in an industry research lab in the bay, and while there isn't a requirement to review X papers a year, it is expected that you keep up with the literature, and actively engaging in peer review is one way to do so. A few of my colleagues are on the paper committee for our major academic conference, and they end up reviewing 40+ papers a year and using a week or so to take part in the committee meetings.
Re: Peer review: the end of an error?
#10This article says that peer review is unpaid - it isn't. If you are an academic or work in industrial research, it's part of your paid job to do peer review as part of the community. You are paid for it - it's part of your job and it's normal to do it during work hours.
Although reviewership is a useful thing that gets put on CVs, I can't think of a position I've ever seen where "review X papers" a year is part of the job requirement. A more salient point about why it is important to note that peer review is unpaid is that academics, as authors, submit their work---for free---to a journal, where reviewers review it for free, and then the journal turns around and sells the article fo…
This is such an adversarial way to look at it.
I see it as a community. We write and share our papers as part of our jobs, we review each others' papers as part of our jobs, we help to run the conference as part of our jobs. Everyone contributes to run the system.
Nobody buys articles for $35 a piece. All major universities and companies subscribe to the ACM or whatever your field's organisation is for you. And guess who runs the ACM and other organisations? The community does! People from the community serve as leadership and help run things.
Yes the ACM gets some money to run their website, conferences and outreach programs. I don't think that's crazy.