[podocarp]

I don't think it's academia not taking it seriously, more like these publishers are just coasting on brand name and trying to milk every cent out of it. Peer review is essentially being a Reddit mod or something, you get nothing out of it but karma or a sticker, and the platform/publisher gets all the benefit.

Imagine being an author and paying to publish your novel. Also btw the editor is another author but has to proofread your book for free.

Many academics will publish preprints or their more popular papers on their own websites etc. It's just common sense because to academics they don't get paid a single cent by the publisher (and instead have to pay the publishers instead) and more publicity for them is always better than less.

[thaumasiotes]

> Imagine being an author and paying to publish your novel.

That is... completely normal.

> Also btw the editor is another author but has to proofread your book for free.

That would be weirder; if you're paying for your own publication, you don't get an editor at all unless you hire them yourself.

[BigTTYGothGF]

> That is... completely normal

Only at vanity presses. Money flows towards the author, as they say.

[ModernMech]

> you get nothing out of it but karma or a sticker, and the platform/publisher gets all the benefit.

Peer review means 3 people spend their time to review your work and you don’t have to pay them a cent, so you review others' work for free. The compensation for reviewing is reviews.

They’re not always great (sometimes they’re downright nasty), but I’ve gotten enough high quality reviews over the years that I’m willing to say the time I’ve spent reviewing others’ work has been fairly compensated.