Read on Twitter
So @jamesheathers' ruckus (ruckus-maker that he is) about $450 for peer reviewing seems to resonate with reviewers (cf @450Movement).
I guess it's implicit in ppl's arguments around this, but what I'm missing in the discussion so far is the "social contract" dimension. Thread:
I guess it's implicit in ppl's arguments around this, but what I'm missing in the discussion so far is the "social contract" dimension. Thread:
In the tweets I've seen (and I probably missed many others!), the main spirit seems to be: it's unpaid reviewers ("us") vs filthy rich publishers ("them") who unfairly benefit from our unpaid labour. In that situation, it makes sense to e.g. go on strike until you get paid. 2/
But to me, there are two separate dimensions to the issue:
1) The work you do as a reviewer (evaluating & giving feedback on colleagues' papers)
2) The business model of commercial publishers
3/
1) The work you do as a reviewer (evaluating & giving feedback on colleagues' papers)
2) The business model of commercial publishers
3/
For me, 1) is part of my (paid) job as a researcher who herself is supposed to publish peer-reviewed papers. That's the social contract: If each of us contributes ~2-4 reviews for each of our own submissions, we will receive the same service for our own papers in return. 4/
But 2) is a separate issue: Although academia benefits from commercial publishers, they seem to benefit way, way more. And THEY are not part of the social contract; they literally siphon unpaid labour of various kinds and bill various parties for it (sometimes twice). 5/
The gross unfairness of this relationship is well known. I am completely on board with getting rid of commercial publishers, or at least radically reforming our relationship with them.
But I think we should disentangle that issue from fair wages for peer review. 6/
But I think we should disentangle that issue from fair wages for peer review. 6/
Personally, I'd prefer a system in which for-profit companies are simply cut out of the publishing process, and we deliver the services we need (editing, peer review) directly, peer-to-peer. 7/
This can work through initiatives such as @PeerCommunityIn, Open Journal Systems @OpenJournalSys (which e.g. powers @Meta_Psy) or perhaps via university publishers like @ucpress (which e.g. powers @CollabraOA, who btw have a fantastic community-empowering payment model). 8/8
