7 ms·

They also manage the review process (screen papers, find reviewers, communicate with authors and reviewers), make sure that papers are accessible long-term (dec

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 are not currently compensated.

auggierose 3y ago
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.
- tsbischof 3y ago
  It's definitely been my experience that reviews are hit-or-miss. Sometimes you get 1-2 reviews where there are valid points that need to be addressed, sometimes you wait 3 months for the reviews to come back, only to find that reviewers 2 and 3 dropped out and reviewer 1 basically said "looks fine". 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.
- rwalle 3y ago
  You'll be surprised how many scientific papers published in reputable journals are not "properly reviewed". In many cases there simply isn't enough time or knowledge to go through every detail of a paper. One example -- if a paper says go to a github repository to look at our source code, guess how many people actually review the code as part of the peer review process? Very few. There could be serious bugs in the code that would affect the results, or maybe the code is difficult to set up and run, but nobody would notice them for a long time.
  - auggierose 3y ago
    After reading my previous comments, why would you think that surprises me? I know for a fact that academics of the highest reputation do very poor reviewing. The cost of a low-quality review is basically zero for the reviewer, while the cost of a high-quality review is high. The consequences of this are not surprising.
gradstudent 3y ago
The only thing elsevier manages is their website. The review process is managed by academics who also work for free. Typesetting is done by authors. Paper printing is basically extinct.
- tsbischof 3y ago
  It's been a few years and I know it depends on the exact journal, but I thought Elsevier had paid editors? My memory is that society journals tend to be unpaid but that Elsevier, Nature, Frontiers, etc. had paid editors.
- jltsiren 3y ago
  Typesetting is done by authors (in some fields) and then completely redone by Elsevier staff. The value they add is questionable at best, but they certainly spend a lot of effort making the paper conform to their standards.
  - etiam 3y ago
    > The value they add is questionable at best ...or detract, one might add. I know of a researcher who has been meticulous about editing and wording, only to have the submissions "corrected" for publication to use the wrong word (existing, and meaning something different) for key concepts. I'm guessing incompetence combined with standard dictionary computer spellchecking at the publisher's end.
  - foven 3y ago
    As far as I am aware, they don't necessarily even do the final editing themselves; at least with the APS journals, they outsource the final typesetting to another company.
  - goosedragons 3y ago
    Which the author then has to go back and fix because they don't understand what they're typesetting. Some journals provide the LaTeX template too so they don't even do THAT step.
- 3y ago
ZoltanAK2 3y ago
> They also manage the review process (screen papers, find reviewers, communicate with authors and reviewers), They do not. That's the editor's job, and Elsevier journal editors are unpaid volunteers -- as the Guardian article correctly pointed out. > 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. It generally takes much much longer than that. The average article in Neuroimage is 14 pages long (~ 10000 words), not counting references and declarations. Pure reading, single-domain, technical: the chart says 10k words will take at least 60 minutes. And you'll definitely need to read the article more than once while doing peer review. Then you'll need to look up references, do some sanity check calculations, evaluate artifacts if available, scrutinize figures, and unless you're up-to-date on all recent developments of the field, probably read at least one more article on prior work just to understand what's going on. If unusual methods were used in the evaluations, you have to understand these too, so better add a few more days. And you still have to actually write the review: at that point, you only have some notes and scribbles! In neuroscience, we're talking about at least 2-3 days of FTE work. And that's only the first round of reviews. About 80% of articles go through multiple rounds of review-response, according to Neuroimage's own statistics. In other fields, review times might be significantly longer (weeks, or in mathematics even months, instead of days). Elsevier profit margins are 40%, according to their own admission. They could afford the costs of compensating this labor. But why would they?
- 6510 3y ago
  Who pays for those hours?
  - PeterisP 3y ago
    Technically, no one; in practice, it gets done by both faculty and grad students/postdocs paid by universities as something that's expected of them to keep getting their wages for their primary work.
  - fluidcruft 3y ago
    Nobody. But those of us that need continuing education (needed for maintenance of certifications) can get some hours of credit for it. Certifications are more the domain of practicing professional scientists though, so it doesn't really help much in typical academia.
UncleMeat 3y ago
When I published with a journal, we had basically direct contact with the reviewers and little interposing. I did all of the typesetting. The journal just executed my latex files. The long term accessibility of papers via journals is largely overblown and it isn't even actual accessibility paid for by the submission - since that is covered by subscription fees.
ModernMech 3y ago
> 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. They aren't paid, but that doesn't mean they aren't compensated; those reviewers will later submit papers which will receive reviews, for which they don't have to pay.

auggierose 3y ago

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.

tsbischof 3y ago
It's definitely been my experience that reviews are hit-or-miss. Sometimes you get 1-2 reviews where there are valid points that need to be addressed, sometimes you wait 3 months for the reviews to come back, only to find that reviewers 2 and 3 dropped out and reviewer 1 basically said "looks fine". 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.
rwalle 3y ago
You'll be surprised how many scientific papers published in reputable journals are not "properly reviewed". In many cases there simply isn't enough time or knowledge to go through every detail of a paper. One example -- if a paper says go to a github repository to look at our source code, guess how many people actually review the code as part of the peer review process? Very few. There could be serious bugs in the code that would affect the results, or maybe the code is difficult to set up and run, but nobody would notice them for a long time.
- auggierose 3y ago
  After reading my previous comments, why would you think that surprises me? I know for a fact that academics of the highest reputation do very poor reviewing. The cost of a low-quality review is basically zero for the reviewer, while the cost of a high-quality review is high. The consequences of this are not surprising.

gradstudent 3y ago

The only thing elsevier manages is their website. The review process is managed by academics who also work for free. Typesetting is done by authors. Paper printing is basically extinct.

tsbischof 3y ago
It's been a few years and I know it depends on the exact journal, but I thought Elsevier had paid editors? My memory is that society journals tend to be unpaid but that Elsevier, Nature, Frontiers, etc. had paid editors.
jltsiren 3y ago
Typesetting is done by authors (in some fields) and then completely redone by Elsevier staff. The value they add is questionable at best, but they certainly spend a lot of effort making the paper conform to their standards.
- etiam 3y ago
  > The value they add is questionable at best ...or detract, one might add. I know of a researcher who has been meticulous about editing and wording, only to have the submissions "corrected" for publication to use the wrong word (existing, and meaning something different) for key concepts. I'm guessing incompetence combined with standard dictionary computer spellchecking at the publisher's end.
- foven 3y ago
  As far as I am aware, they don't necessarily even do the final editing themselves; at least with the APS journals, they outsource the final typesetting to another company.
- goosedragons 3y ago
  Which the author then has to go back and fix because they don't understand what they're typesetting. Some journals provide the LaTeX template too so they don't even do THAT step.
3y ago

ZoltanAK2 3y ago

> They also manage the review process (screen papers, find reviewers, communicate with authors and reviewers), They do not. That's the editor's job, and Elsevier journal editors are unpaid volunteers -- as the Guardian article correctly pointed out. > 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. It generally takes much much longer than that. The average article in Neuroimage is 14 pages long (~ 10000 words), not counting references and declarations. Pure reading, single-domain, technical: the chart says 10k words will take at least 60 minutes. And you'll definitely need to read the article more than once while doing peer review. Then you'll need to look up references, do some sanity check calculations, evaluate artifacts if available, scrutinize figures, and unless you're up-to-date on all recent developments of the field, probably read at least one more article on prior work just to understand what's going on. If unusual methods were used in the evaluations, you have to understand these too, so better add a few more days. And you still have to actually write the review: at that point, you only have some notes and scribbles! In neuroscience, we're talking about at least 2-3 days of FTE work. And that's only the first round of reviews. About 80% of articles go through multiple rounds of review-response, according to Neuroimage's own statistics. In other fields, review times might be significantly longer (weeks, or in mathematics even months, instead of days). Elsevier profit margins are 40%, according to their own admission. They could afford the costs of compensating this labor. But why would they?

6510 3y ago
Who pays for those hours?
- PeterisP 3y ago
  Technically, no one; in practice, it gets done by both faculty and grad students/postdocs paid by universities as something that's expected of them to keep getting their wages for their primary work.
- fluidcruft 3y ago
  Nobody. But those of us that need continuing education (needed for maintenance of certifications) can get some hours of credit for it. Certifications are more the domain of practicing professional scientists though, so it doesn't really help much in typical academia.

UncleMeat 3y ago

When I published with a journal, we had basically direct contact with the reviewers and little interposing. I did all of the typesetting. The journal just executed my latex files. The long term accessibility of papers via journals is largely overblown and it isn't even actual accessibility paid for by the submission - since that is covered by subscription fees.

ModernMech 3y ago

> 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. They aren't paid, but that doesn't mean they aren't compensated; those reviewers will later submit papers which will receive reviews, for which they don't have to pay.