reply on: The strain on scientific publishing \ stacker news ~science

pull down to refresh

10 sats \ 3 replies \ @south_korea_ln OP 17 Jan \ parent \ on: The strain on scientific publishing science

What qualifies one to be a community reviewer, and would he or she have the requisite expertise to critique papers?

That brings us back to the positive side of peer review. In theory, this is what makes sure that the reviewer is qualified, in one way or another. I only get to referee papers where the editor knows I'm capable of carrying out the specific equations or simulations used in the paper. And these days, many journals show the referee reports along with the papers.

Making this process more open could lead to some kind of review by the community where the opaqueness and secrecy of the current review system gets addressed. At least with it being open, one can better see if relationships (guanxi) have corrupted the process...

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic 17 Jan

I think that removing some of the money from the process may also provide less problems than we have now..

0 sats \ 1 reply \ @south_korea_ln OP 18 Jan

Fully agree that the way openaccess journals have basically "pay-to-publish" journals has corrupted a big part of the field. That's why, sadly, the "reader-pays-to-read" model is still the more reliable than the "pay-to-publish" model. All of this is because of the middle man (the editor) that is profiting all the way, without adding much value to the equation. My research should be open for everyone to read, as my research was paid with tax money, so the taxpayer should have free access to it.

All of this is valid within the current paradigm. But for reasons mentioned in other messages, the current paradigm needs a drastic overhaul to actually solve the issues.

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Rothbardian_fanatic 18 Jan

Your observation on who owns your research is one that is denied in most cases. If a company pays for research it is their property to dispose of as they like, including publication or non-publication. If a taxpayer funded research project is owned by the taxpayers, then there should only be a publish option and no other. The state could put a small fee for reading, just to keep the trolls out, but not large enough to keep the taxpayers out. Trolls seem to go for the free stuff the most. BTW, that is also why I like stacker news, not many trolls.