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

Re: Publishers - your thoughts on jobs for your authors and reviewers?

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?


(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