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

• 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

    • Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.win ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      I’m arguing that the solution to your concern is that the corporation and profit aspects be removed. The reason I prefer this angle is because science emphasizes the need to remove all or as much bias as possible and economic incentives inevitably induce bias’ and restrictions that increase the problems I’ve already pointed out earlier.

      The question of whether peer reviewers ought to be paid and how is a complex one that has many ethical considerations on either side of the argument. I strongly recommend you research this debate yourself if you are interested in the subject.

      source

      • rockSlayer@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

        I agree that ultimately, science and profit do not mix in any capacity and the money aspect must be done away with. I do have some knowledge of the debate as a labor activist, but not nearly as much as I’d like. However, until there is an shift to economic socialism on an international scale, anyone doing science is performing labor that will produce an incentive to extract profit from these workers. Ideals and ethics are important considerations for science, but the class dynamic cannot be ignored and must be addressed for an equitable solution to emerge.

        source
  • QuizzaciousOtter@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

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

    source