[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: "Overlay Journals" Over Again...

The situation is this:

1) researchers HAVE to publish and HAVE to have their 
publications  peer-reviewed;
2) existing systems (OA-author-paid as well subscriptions) ONLY 
pay  for PUBLISHED articles.

So the real problem is this: in neither case is the organization 
of  peer review per se paid for. Those who argue that it is, 
place the  entire burden of cost exclusively on the PUBLISHED 

What is needed is a system such as, say, your diving test. You 
pay  for the test, whether you pass or not. Translated to 
publications, a  fee at submission is what we need, for which 
peer-review is  organized. And this fee should be non-refundable, 
whether the article  is accepted for publication or not.

Where is the courageous and/or visionary 'publisher' (just using 
a  familiar term that should probably be changed into 'assessment 
organization' or pithier equivalent) who starts a system like 

Jan Velterop

On 1 Jul 2009, at 06:40, Joseph Esposito wrote:
> What Professor Harnad is proposing is very similar to the review
> process that brought on the subprime mortgage crisis.  Anyone who
> lost retirement money or a job or is struggling with a mortgage
> payment should read on.
> The rating agencies (Fitch, Moody's, and Standard & Poor) are
> approached by anyone who wishes to market a security.  "Here are
> some mortgages; would you rate them for us?  We will pay your fee
> for your appraisal."  That is, the rating agencies are
> compensated by the very organizations that have securities to be
> evaluated.  This tends to result in securities getting better
> ratings than they deserve--a systemic flaw.  Many of the loans
> that have gone unpaid were rated AAA by the agencies.
> Now we have a proposal that authors pay to get their material
> evaluated. The potential for abuse is tremendous.  And it is
> risky by design, not because of the poor character of the
> participants.
> This is not an argument against open access; like Professor
> Harnad I believe that "author-pays" publishing is going to play a
> large role (though I think it will be only one form of business
> model for research literature).  The problem is what the author
> is paying for.  It is systemically corrupt for authors to pay for
> peer review.  I would prefer to see them pay for online hosting
> and various tools that make the literature more useful.  And one
> of those tools would be a commenting and annotation feature that
> would serve as a form of review.
> List members may recognize in this description some of the
> elements of community-based online social media.  Cognitive
> scientists make up a community (or several) just as do the fans
> of the Grateful Dead or Radiohead.  The open access movement
> simply has not caught up with the Internet.
> Joe Esposito