In article <9305311844.AA03145 at net.bio.net> SJJ at ICBR.IFAS.UFL.EDU
("JONG, SONG-MUH J") writes:
| I realize that most of the people try to avoid facing the question
| of whether journals can monopolize science, so I will not say
| anything on that now.
But please do later. I think that they do.
| First, it doesn't seem to be a good idea to review papers for free.
| That kind of volunteer work was fun and noble in good old days, but
| may not serve the evergrowing scientific community nowadays.
| Scientists should start to charge their reviewing efforts just as
| medical doctors charge for any consultation. That might increase
| the cost of publishing papers in journals, but I would argue that,
| even with free reviewing, the cost will rise for other reasons put
| out by publishers anyway. Besides, good journals would have to open
| their revenues for covering the publication cost, just like other
| publications are doing now.
VERY VERY intersting propo$al! You have changed from saying that
the reviewers should be paid more to that they should be paid.
How would such a system work? Let's see ... using the evolutionary
concept by (sorry, missed the name) if I say to a journal - "please
send me $50 for this review" - what do you think they will do?
Next time they may not ask me! I wonder if they would send me $5?
This also raises the possibility of professional reviewers. Is that good?
Would they lose touch with the science? I suspect so.
| Secondly, we should not have double standard in science. If we
| agree that proper reviews of papers prior to publication is
| essential for keeping the quality of science from falling, we must
| declare any publications without adequate reviews as invalid. In
| other words, any paper published in PNAS or other journals without
| going through peer review system should not be counted as
| publication for any academic purpose, such as tenure promotion.
Nice point.
Just what is the exact situation with PNAS? How easily can somebody
in the academy get a paper published without review?
Tom Schneider
National Cancer Institute
Laboratory of Mathematical Biology
Frederick, Maryland 21702-1201
toms at ncifcrf.gov
