Skip to main content

Reply to comment

peer review

June 2, 2009 by coglanglab, 25 weeks 2 days ago
Comment: 36987

Anonymous: certainly peer review is an important part of the publication process...but it's not something that the publisher contributes. The peer reviewers are typically volunteers. So the money we pay journals simply doesn't go into the peer review process.

Sure, you can say that the money goes to paying the editor to pick some peer reviewers, but you're going to have a hard time convincing me that's the only way to arrange things. For instance, suppose we have an open-access journal with a set list of reviewers, organized by subject matter. When you submit a paper, you select the subject, and a random subset of the reviewers for that subject are assigned to do the reviews. Many conferences in my field actually do something like this in order to select conference papers and posters.

You could even do something more sophisticated, where you analyze the text in the paper and select other researchers who (in the judgment of the algorithm) write about similar topics. Will this be as good as a live editor? Maybe, maybe not. But it couldn't be much worse, and it would eliminate the need to pay a publisher altogether.

Reply



About us

Science Blog was started in August 2002. It lives, breathes and eats press releases from research organizations around the globe. Most of what you read here are press releases from the outfits named in the stories themselves. Got a news story you think belongs here? Let's talk. The other half of the equation is blog posts from readers like you. So if you have an interest in science, please register and join others like you in an ongoing, vibrant dialog about what makes the world tick. Meantime, please take a minute to read our Privacy Policy and Site Disclaimer.


Premium Drupal Themes by Adaptivethemes