J. Harnad has some further recommendations on the subject of
> referee answerability and compensation: He recommends that (a) all
> referees should be paid to referee papers; (b) payment for a rejected
> paper should be minimal (say, $200), but payment for an accepted paper
> should be commensurate with the effort of seeing it through the
> successive revisions (say, $2000) to successful publication; and, to
> avoid the potential abuse discussed above, (c) if a paper is accepted,
> the name of the accepting referee(s) should be co-published with it, to
> share the responsibility, praise or blame. He feels this would raise
> the quality of the refereeing and make the entire process much more
> answerable, hence effective, than it is now.
This is all something that should be orchestrated by the author
prior to submission, if necessary using his/her grant funds for the
purpose. The publishing houses have NO business helping, through the
"hiring" of a compliant referee, the process of writing a paper.
Sincerely, Donald Forsdyke, Discussion Leader. Bionet.journals.note
