Post #2433618
2024-03-29 22:45 UTC
@plektix@mathstodon.xyz @villavelius@mastodon.online @brembs@mastodon.social @Luke_Drury@mastodon.dias.ie @johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org @PeerCommunityIn@ecoevo.social
Yes, making post-publication review happen is a problem. On the other hand, so is making PRE-publication peer-review happen. It only works because we have a class of people (handling editors) who are tasked with soliciting people to do it. There's no reason that can't be done post-pub instead. (That's what eLife does now.)
Replies (1)
-
@johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org 2024-03-29 23:27
@mike@sauropods.win @plektix@mathstodon.xyz I don’t think that we should pay reviewers or part-time editors from publishing costs, I would like to see those tasks recognised as part of paid faculty positions (which of course means the time spent needs to be recognised too). But this comes from a position of privilege as research at Dutch academic hospitals pays decently. To me the ideal scenario is preprint and reviewing infrastructure run by public institutions or university libraries, akin to PubMed, BioRxiv or GEO.