Re: Open Letter to Philip Campbell, Editor, Nature

From: David Goodman <dgoodman_at_Princeton.EDU>
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 12:35:10 -0500

Dear Peter,

To a scientist, performing peer review means writing the review. This is done
without cost to the publisher, direct or indirect. It could be said to be done at
the expense of the postdoctoral fellows and faculty who write the reviews,
although they consider it well recompensed by the recognition and the increased
awareness of the work being done in their field.

You are talking about what a scientist would call organizing peer review. The burden on
the editors depend on the number of manuscripts, and the degree of assistance.
it is most decidedly not a full time job for most small journals.
This part is the only part a scientist would call the expense for managing peer review,
in the literal sense of managing only the discussions leading up to the decision to accept
or reject the paper.

For a small journal, the editor of the journal often does are many of the tasks in
preparing the manuscript for printing. In a small journal the editor
may perform it himself, but in a scientist's view this is really sub-editing or
copy-editing, not editing. and would be done by paid staff if not be the editor.
A scientist would consider it part of the production costs.
No one is arguing that this is unnecessary,
in a pure self-publishing repository only system, the author or his institution would
normally have to pay this cost to be sure the final version is presentable.

Or not. If it were to be accepted by scientists that a clean peer-reviewed manuscript is
sufficient formatting, many of the costs go down. So does the quality, but the
question is whether the scientists care enough about quality to be worth the price.

David Goodman, Ph.D., M.L.S.
Bibliographer and Research Librarian
Princeton University Library

----- Original Message -----
From: Peter Banks <pbanks_at_BANKSPUB.COM>
Date: Thursday, November 30, 2006 11:46 am
Subject: Re: [AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM] Open Letter to Philip Campbell, Editor, Nature

> (4) But researchers perform the peer review for publishers for free
> (no fee)
> No, they don't. The peer review time is donated, but, in medicine and
> biomedical science, the editors, associate editors, and host
> universitiesreceive significant payment.
> On 11/30/06 8:49 AM, "Stevan Harnad" <harnad_at_ECS.SOTON.AC.UK> wrote:
> > (4) But researchers perform the peer review for publishers for free
> > (no fee)
> Peter Banks[
Received on Fri Dec 01 2006 - 04:35:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Dec 10 2010 - 19:48:37 GMT