Comment on The peer review system no longer works to guarantee academic rigour - a different approach is needed
Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.win 1 month agoif editors did a hint of work with all the money
Exactly. Why do authors need to pay for review/publication but the reviewers are volunteer and the journals paywalled? There is a fundamental mismatch between who gets vs deserves the money.
QuizzaciousOtter@lemm.ee 1 month ago
Wait, reviewers are not paid?!
Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.win 1 month ago
Not typically, no. There have been exceptions ofc, but peer reviewing is typically volunteer.
QuizzaciousOtter@lemm.ee 1 month ago
I had no idea. That’s fucked up.
Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.win 1 month ago
Eh, it’s not as bad as it sounds TBH. Paid reviewers would have ethical and economic pressures that hinder their effectiveness. Non-specialists in the same field would end up responsible for reviews of articles they are only rudimentarily familiar with (think astrophycisists working on exoplanet formation and composition having to review papers on black hole implications for dark energy. They ‘could’ but are not the best qualified to do so). Needing to review enough papers to earn a living means this dilution multiplied 100-fold to get enough done.
With volunteering at least scientists that are interested in that paper’s topic, and hence are likely a specialist in it, are the ones looking at it and doing so at their leisure instead of needing to do 100 by weeks end to put food on their table.
Personally, I think all privatization involved should be removed. Volunteer reviewers to public non-profit journals paid either by donations or tax dollars and freely accessible to all.