Discussion
Loading...

Post

Log in
  • About
  • Code of conduct
  • Privacy
  • Users
  • Instances
  • About Bonfire
El Duvelle
El Duvelle
@elduvelle@neuromatch.social  ·  activity timestamp 2 weeks ago

If a journal asks me to do a peer-review for them, which I accept, then it makes a decision before the review deadline, without waiting for my review, and without letting me know that I do not need to do the review.. while I use my spare time to complete the peer-review by the deadline... then I am not going to do any more peer-review for that journal 🤷

( #PLoSOne in this case 🫤)
#AcademicChatter #PeerReview

  • Copy link
  • Flag this post
  • Block
Alex Holcombe
Alex Holcombe
@alexh@fediscience.org  ·  activity timestamp 2 weeks ago

@elduvelle it's unfortunate they probably felt so much (financial) pressure to speed up their review times to match their competitors that they instituted a system where that can happen

  • Copy link
  • Flag this comment
  • Block
El Duvelle
El Duvelle
@elduvelle@neuromatch.social  ·  activity timestamp 2 weeks ago

@alexh Maybe, but that shouldn't prevent them from warning their reviewers if they don't need to do a review anymore..

  • Copy link
  • Flag this comment
  • Block
P_______X
P_______X
@P__X@mastodon.social  ·  activity timestamp 2 weeks ago

@elduvelle @alexh scientific publishing needs a complete overhaul. there is no other industry where the distributor
1. Receives content for free
2. Filters content for free/pocket change (editors)
3. QCs content for free (reviewers)
4. Then asks money for free content to be published (publishing fee)
5. Then asks for more money for content they received for free to be freely accessible (open access fee).

It's a total scam.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s41073-021-00118-2

SpringerLink

A billion-dollar donation: estimating the cost of researchers’ time spent on peer review - Research Integrity and Peer Review

Background The amount and value of researchers’ peer review work is critical for academia and journal publishing. However, this labor is under-recognized, its magnitude is unknown, and alternative ways of organizing peer review labor are rarely considered. Methods Using publicly available data, we provide an estimate of researchers’ time and the salary-based contribution to the journal peer review system. Results We found that the total time reviewers globally worked on peer reviews was over 100 million hours in 2020, equivalent to over 15 thousand years. The estimated monetary value of the time US-based reviewers spent on reviews was over 1.5 billion USD in 2020. For China-based reviewers, the estimate is over 600 million USD, and for UK-based, close to 400 million USD. Conclusions By design, our results are very likely to be under-estimates as they reflect only a portion of the total number of journals worldwide. The numbers highlight the enormous amount of work and time that researchers provide to the publication system, and the importance of considering alternative ways of structuring, and paying for, peer review. We foster this process by discussing some alternative models that aim to boost the benefits of peer review, thus improving its cost-benefit ratio.
  • Copy link
  • Flag this comment
  • Block
Alex Holcombe
Alex Holcombe
@alexh@fediscience.org  ·  activity timestamp 2 weeks ago

@P__X yes, ICYMI i'm an author of that paper 😊 @elduvelle

  • Copy link
  • Flag this comment
  • Block
P_______X
P_______X
@P__X@mastodon.social  ·  activity timestamp 2 weeks ago

@alexh @elduvelle ohh, i totally did miss it😂 solid work, sir!

as you can see, your paper gets mentioned every time I'm frustrated about peer-review. About every week. Like this morning I woke up to 3 review requests....

  • Copy link
  • Flag this comment
  • Block

bonfire.cafe

A space for Bonfire maintainers and contributors to communicate

bonfire.cafe: About · Code of conduct · Privacy · Users · Instances
Bonfire social · 1.0.2-alpha.34 no JS en
Automatic federation enabled
Log in
Instance logo
  • Explore
  • About
  • Members
  • Code of Conduct