|
|
|
|
|
|
by sideshowb
1933 days ago
|
|
|
In my world (I am a researcher btw) I think expensive open access already is the current norm. But you're right, funders could start to impose limits. (Though I'm sure someone would raise an objection if they did, and I'd be interested to see what that was: your move, publishers!) On a related note, reviewing work is highly skilled and usually unpaid. If (and that's a big if) we wanted to fix that, we'd have to make fees higher again. |
|
|
I'd be ok with that. Off the cuff, the way I see it there are a few options:
1. [Perhaps acceptable] The party behind the submitted paper pays the reviewers for their efforts. This might be done via the publisher, but that's just detail. The reviewers' employers do not treat reviewing as a work activity, i.e. reviewing work is done out of hours.
2. [Acceptable] The reviewers' employers pay the reviewers, treating review work as a routine part of their scientific duties.
3. [Acceptable, likely preferable] (Combining 1 and 2) The reviewers' employers pay the reviewers, treating review work as part of their scientific duties. The party behind the submitted paper pays the reviewers' employers, in compensation for the time spent on reviewing. This has the advantage that reviewing work can be neatly accounted for by all parties, and that, ideally, reviewing work need not be viewed as an additional professional burden atop ordinary working hours. (Whether that's likely to really work out given general academic career pressures, I'm not qualified to say.)
4. [Unacceptable] The reviewers go unpaid for their efforts, and only do the work out of an economically perverse sense of noblesse oblige