• Tuesday, May 29, 2012
May 29, 2012, 11:07:38 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with your Chronicle username and password
News: Talk about how to cope with chronic illness, disability, and other health issues in the academic workplace.
 
Pages: 1 [2]
  Print  
Author Topic: Evil or incompetent journal reviewers  (Read 4230 times)
pigou
Senior member
****
Posts: 702


« Reply #15 on: December 08, 2011, 07:41:13 PM »

Is there something obvious I'm missing as to why journals can't have reviewers on staff? Charge the cost as a submission fee and lower the cost for submissions from developing countries. You might end up with a fee of $200 per article, but that would easily be worth not having to wait months for a response. Plus, there would presumably be better feedback, too.
Logged
sciencephd
Distinguished Senior Member
*****
Posts: 6,040


WWW
« Reply #16 on: December 08, 2011, 09:17:47 PM »

Is there something obvious I'm missing as to why journals can't have reviewers on staff? Charge the cost as a submission fee and lower the cost for submissions from developing countries. You might end up with a fee of $200 per article, but that would easily be worth not having to wait months for a response. Plus, there would presumably be better feedback, too.

1. Cost.
2. Size of staff to competently covered breadth of material would be enormous.
3. Even most editing tasks ...well at least in terms of getting manuscripts to the appropriate reviewers are doing by academic editors...i.e. unpaid.
Logged

I just hate it that I constantly have to like everyone and everything. -- moonstone

O, what a hateful feminist concoction!
Jews, communists, "lesbians", feminists and marihuana addicts  --Pyshnov
mouseman
Oh dear, how did I become a
Distinguished Senior Member
*****
Posts: 7,103

The Validater/Validator-in-Chief


« Reply #17 on: December 08, 2011, 09:35:59 PM »

Ummm... $200 per article?  To publish an article in many of the life sciences you are already may need to pay > $1000.  For example, to publish an article in PLoS ONE, you need to pay $1350, while for PLoS Biology, it's $2900.  

As for the rest, what SciencePhD said.
Logged

In the midst of the word he was trying to say,
In the midst of his laughter and glee,
He had softly and suddenly vanished away -- -
For the Snark was a Boojum, you see.
                                                  Lewis Carroll
quasihumanist
Senior member
****
Posts: 464


« Reply #18 on: December 09, 2011, 12:52:16 AM »

Is there something obvious I'm missing as to why journals can't have reviewers on staff? Charge the cost as a submission fee and lower the cost for submissions from developing countries. You might end up with a fee of $200 per article, but that would easily be worth not having to wait months for a response. Plus, there would presumably be better feedback, too.

I will submit a (fairly long) paper sometime this month.  For this paper:

1) I don't think there are 100 people in the world who are competent to review this paper.  A generalist journal in my field would need at least several hundred reviewers to cover everything.

2) Reviewing this paper is at least a full week of work.  If the reviewer makes a salary comparable to that of a mid-career academic at a decent research university, we are talking over $1500 for a week, and that's for a fairly poorly paid academic and not counting benefits or various indirect costs.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.9 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!