Recent replies to "Cascades in peer-review"

Reply from Maxine Clarke

Maxine Clarke — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 14:26:23 -0000

I think that, in the context of his piece (at link), Juan-Carlos is saying that people who evaluate the costs of publishing often briefly summarise peer-review as “free” because the journal does not pay its peer-reviewers. Whereas, in fact, for many reasons including the one you rightly state, it isn’t.

Reply from Heather Etchevers

Heather Etchevers — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:07:12 -0000

Does this mean compensation in the form of the intellectual satisfaction derived from reading a presumably good paper in your field ahead of the pack, or is it more concrete?

It hardly seems fair; there are papers I read that I do think I ought to be be paid to read because they are painful, but these are not from “high-profile” journals.