11–20 of 254 posts
Curious what is the leading open source system being used for publication of journals where academics are trying to get out of such exploitative practices? Or is it a collection of bespoke setups with no clear leader?
You cannot really blame Elsevier here. They are just taking advantage of a dysfunctional academic system. The cost of reviewing a paper properly is high, but academia is not paying that cost by simply not doing a proper review. If the money saved by cutting Elsevier out (in this case £2700 per accepted paper) would actually be added to a pool out of which reviews are financed, I would see the point. But as it is, the…
Curious what is the leading open source system being used for publication of journals where academics are trying to get out of such exploitative practices? Or is it a collection of bespoke setups with no clear leader?
I know a couple of people working in this space, and ultimately it ends up being a networking issue: in order to get peer reviewers at a scale which is acceptable, you basically have to buy editors with networks of contacts. Since good or even mediocre reviewers are scarce, this ends up leading to significant competition for reviews. But reviewers are not compensated so there is no market pressure for reviewers to actually exist. Publishing is now a profit-driven system built on top of an informal network created by enthusiasts who were originally doing the work because it was important to them.
There have been a couple of attempts at matchmaking systems and rewards systems. https://www.reviewcommons.org/ is the most visible in my field, but they only get 1-2 preprint reviews out per day so far. This is still quite new and there are a couple of other platforms in development.
You cannot really blame Elsevier here. They are just taking advantage of a dysfunctional academic system. The cost of reviewing a paper properly is high, but academia is not paying that cost by simply not doing a proper review. If the money saved by cutting Elsevier out (in this case £2700 per accepted paper) would actually be added to a pool out of which reviews are financed, I would see the point. But as it is, the…
The article states that peer review is done on a volunteer basis, right? All Elsevier does, at best, is put PDFs of the papers on their servers.
You cannot really blame Elsevier here. They are just taking advantage of a dysfunctional academic system. The cost of reviewing a paper properly is high, but academia is not paying that cost by simply not doing a proper review. If the money saved by cutting Elsevier out (in this case £2700 per accepted paper) would actually be added to a pool out of which reviews are financed, I would see the point. But as it is, the…
The article states that peer review is done on a volunteer basis, right? All Elsevier does, at best, is put PDFs of the papers on their servers.
But yes, reviewers are not paid. A half-decent review can easily take 3-4 hours, and a typical paper gets 2-3 reviews, so something like 8-12 hours of PhD-level labor which are not currently compensated.
You cannot really blame Elsevier here. They are just taking advantage of a dysfunctional academic system. The cost of reviewing a paper properly is high, but academia is not paying that cost by simply not doing a proper review. If the money saved by cutting Elsevier out (in this case £2700 per accepted paper) would actually be added to a pool out of which reviews are financed, I would see the point. But as it is, the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article states that peer review is done on a volunteer basis, right? All Elsevier does, at best, is put PDFs of the papers on their servers.
They also manage the review process (screen papers, find reviewers, communicate with authors and reviewers), make sure that papers are accessible long-term (decades to centuries), typeset manuscripts, print paper issues, and several other tasks. But yes, reviewers are not paid. A half-decent review can easily take 3-4 hours, and a typical paper gets 2-3 reviews, so something like 8-12 hours of PhD-level labor which a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article states that peer review is done on a volunteer basis, right? All Elsevier does, at best, is put PDFs of the papers on their servers.
My comment is not about the value that Elsevier adds. You are reading my comment as reviewers review papers these days.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article states that peer review is done on a volunteer basis, right? All Elsevier does, at best, is put PDFs of the papers on their servers.
They also manage the review process (screen papers, find reviewers, communicate with authors and reviewers), make sure that papers are accessible long-term (decades to centuries), typeset manuscripts, print paper issues, and several other tasks. But yes, reviewers are not paid. A half-decent review can easily take 3-4 hours, and a typical paper gets 2-3 reviews, so something like 8-12 hours of PhD-level labor which a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They also manage the review process (screen papers, find reviewers, communicate with authors and reviewers), make sure that papers are accessible long-term (decades to centuries), typeset manuscripts, print paper issues, and several other tasks. But yes, reviewers are not paid. A half-decent review can easily take 3-4 hours, and a typical paper gets 2-3 reviews, so something like 8-12 hours of PhD-level labor which a…
A half-decent review is not a proper review. Just the fact you are saying it like that is basically accepting that nobody is doing proper reviews.
Part of the challenge of peer review is that it comes _after_ the paper is written, when the cost of changing anything is quite high. I find much more value in peer review when planning experiments, and do so informally with my peers.