@dr_norb @academicchatter Maybe journal editors should not rely on free services and start paying reviewers for their work.
@dandelionhub @dr_norb @academicchatter why? You need your papers reviewed, so you review papers. It's part of the job. Write as many referee reports as you get from others and we're all fine.
@harcel @dandelionhub @dr_norb @academicchatter but if journal charge CHF 2500 and the review are for free, does not sound fair
@Xna_NaJu @harcel @dandelionhub @academicchatter If the reviewers are paid, the manuscript will be 3000 CHF at least. How does that sound?
@dr_norb @harcel @dandelionhub @academicchatter Or maybe the journal profits could be less. I do review for those journals but I do no publish there because of the price
@dr_norb @Xna_NaJu @harcel @academicchatter
The publisher-based publication model is outdated because information can be shared at minimal cost on the web. The problem the current model tries to solve is quality control and scoring of scientific reputation (eg h-index). These problems should be addressed separately from the publication of scientific information.
@Xna_NaJu @harcel @dandelionhub @academicchatter That's certainly a valid point.
But it is illusionary to assume that journals will ever reduce profits. If they have higher costs, someone will get the bill: either the authors or libraries/readers. Both exclude poorer scientists.