4 ms·
and fees for publishing. i.e. Why should people have to pay to view the results of what is often publicly funded research? Even more so why should researchers
by jacoblambda 8y ago
and fees for publishing.
i.e. Why should people have to pay to view the results of what is often publicly funded research? Even more so why should researchers have to pay to publish work that the publishers profit off of but the researchers don't.
- eanzenberg 8y agoBecause being a peer reviewer shouldn’t be done for free? Do you like being paid to work? Because Nature has established themselves as a premier journal over the the past 150 years and are known for their quality? Or maybe I’m just taking crazy pills..
- etrautmann 8y agoPeer reviewers are not ever paid, making this whole arrangement somewhat bizarre and unsavory to reviewers and authors alike.
- hannob 8y agoThere's a strange thing, there seems to be a universal rule of Open Access discussions: There will always be someone who defends publishers based on not knowing anything about how scientific publishing works.
- svat 8y agoMy favourite article about open access, about the Journal of Machine Learning Research, and really the ultimate smackdown, all done very politely: https://blogs.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2012/03/06/an-efficient-journal/ https://blogs.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2012/03/06/an-efficient-j...
- bnegreve 8y agoThat's the problem: publishers don't pay reviewers but charge for their work.
- sn41 8y agoPeer review is not paid work. Mostly it is done as an overhead that is understood as part of being an active researcher. I would even venture to say that most researchers will be against the idea of paid reviews, just like Amazon found out that paid product reviews are a very bad idea.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- kortilla 8y ago>Or maybe I’m just taking crazy pills.. You are. Where did you ever get the idea that nature pays for reviews?
- lenticular 8y agoHaha, reviewers getting paid. That's a good one. This journal charges the authors for Pete's sake.