[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Publishers - your thoughts on jobs for your authors and reviewers?
- To: "firstname.lastname@example.org" <email@example.com>
- Subject: Re: Publishers - your thoughts on jobs for your authors and reviewers?
- From: David Prosser <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2011 20:29:56 EDT
- Reply-to: email@example.com
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
Peer review is not the only cost of scholarly publishing and so I'm not sure why Sandy is focussing on it. Here's a couple of thoughts. Elsevier (and I'm using them as shorthand for most large publishers) receives approximately $5000 per article they publish. PLoS receives less than $2000 per article they publish*. The question is: is Elsevier and its ilk providing 2.5 times the service, impact, and quality that PLoS provides? David (PLoS one has an article processing charge of $1350. Other PLoS journals have higher charges, but as they publish far fewer articles I'm assuming that the average comes in at less than $2k. Please let me know if I'm wrong.) On 29 Jun 2011, at 04:03, Sandy Thatcher wrote: > Besides pointing out the obvious, viz., that university press > employees are just as subject to being cut as any other > university staff are and thus it makes no sense to interpret > this to be the position of the journal publishers in our ranks, > I would point out that the article does not address the > "perverse incentives" noted by one of the commenters that drive > the whole system and result in ever increasing article output > by faculty (which, in turn, partly accounts for price increases > exceeding the rate of inflation and adds to the burden on > faculty of peer reviewing more articles). Nor does it offer any > solution so far as peer review is concerned. The fact is that > open access is no answer at all to the cost of peer review. > > Indeed, to the extent that librarians encourage the launching > of more OA journals resulting in ever more articles being > produced, the cost of peer review will rise even further. I > don't know that it is fair to accuse any publishers of being > responsible for encouraging the increase in article output. The > reasons for this increase lie much more in the "perverse > incentives" of the whole promotion-and-tenure process as well > as the system of research grants that seems to reward > scientists who are most "productive" in terms of number of > articles published. Until these "perverse incentives" change, > there will be no decrease in peer-review costs. > > Sandy Thatcher
- Prev by Date: Re: Publishers - thoughts on jobs for your authors and reviewers?
- Next by Date: Re: PLOS One
- Previous by thread: Re: Publishers - thoughts on jobs for your authors and reviewers?
- Next by thread: Re: PLOS One