Comment on The peer review system no longer works to guarantee academic rigour - a different approach is needed

• Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.win ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Not typically, no. There have been exceptions ofc, but peer reviewing is typically volunteer.

  source

  • QuizzaciousOtter@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    I had no idea. That’s fucked up.

    source

    • 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.

      source

      • rockSlayer@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        Why does the selection process for reviewers need to also disappear to provide wages? Journals still select reviewers for best fit. Ultimately, peer reviewers are performing labor for a corporation making profit. It is unethical for anyone to be put in a position to provide free labor in the pursuit of profit of a corporation.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
      • QuizzaciousOtter@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        Right, your take sounds convincing. Thanks for the insight!

        source