"scientists want their cut on the scam"

Informações recentes no universo dos bolseiros. Notícias da imprensa sobre ciência são também bem-vindas.
Responder
Torgal
cientista sempre presente
cientista sempre presente
Mensagens: 1299
Registado: quarta dez 09, 2015 8:17 am
University/ Institute: Minho

"scientists want their cut on the scam"

Mensagem por Torgal » segunda ago 28, 2017 8:09 am

In a recent, interesting although sarcastic and even cynical post the German science journalist Leonid Schneider comments againts the possibility of reviewers getting payed by review services. https://forbetterscience.com/2017/08/24 ... /#comments

Sharing an opposite position I do believe that at least in an initial and experimental phase in top journals and for retired top academics such payment of reviews should be considered in order to solve several problems. The use of payed retired reviewers has the advantage of papers not being reviewed by competitors on the same field that may steal the findings(Diamandis, 2017) and also the advantage of no need for the use of anonymity thus greatly reducing the possibility of the mass production of low quality reviews. Since they are able to deliver good reviews in a timely manner (preferably no more than 10 days) this will also help tackling the very serious "Waiting Game Problem" (Powell, 2016).

If we assume that the recent estimation on the cost of articles made by the Max Planck Society of around 4000 euros is accurate then it would make sense that the review process of each article could cost 1500 euros divided by three reviewers. In an open web like environment it would be very easy to guarantee that each reviewer would not perform more than 6 or 7 payed reviews per month thus eliminating any greedy like temptations. Of course this also means that the papers must first be put in an open access preprint server and were then selected by an Editor as being interesting enough to be submitted to a single round of peer review.

The payment of review services (at least for retired top academics) could even create an incentive for the earlier retirement of those academics already tired of the “publishing or perish” pressure. As a final comment its worth saying that only disturb minds could argue that 500 euro per review is a corrupt process (as Leonid did). In an era when football players are sold by hundreds of millions disturb minds are the ones who believe science can only thrive in a Charles Dickens misery like payment environment.

Diamandis, E. P. (2017). The current peer review system is unsustainable-awaken the paid reviewer force!. Clinical Biochemistry.

Powell, K. (2016). The waiting game. Nature, 530(7589), 148

Responder