Post #3237039
2024-03-28 01:06 UTC
@johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org @nasamuffin@jorts.horse Johannes, I agree with most, but not all of what you wrote. My perspective is different. I am a mostly retired academic cardiologist who authored or co-authored >400 peer-reviewed papers and sat on several editorial boards. I have never seen an editor decide to publish a paper because of money (but yes, sometimes if a paper is sensationalistic). I have little faith in preprints and have seen the conclusions of some studies toned down or changed drastically after peer review and "real" publication. Post-publication peer-review might work for basic science better than it does for clinical medicine. I would rather trust vetted reviewers than some guy off the street with an axe to grind. Having said that, I agree that Elsevier and the other big publishing houses are a rip-off.
Replies (1)
-
@johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org 2024-03-28 03:05
@WestCoastCliche@beige.party I completely agree that editors at serious journals do not select papers based on money (although publisher policy does influence acceptance ratio) - editors or reviewers are not the problem. I think we should see preprints just as we would submitted, non-reviewed manuscripts (medRxiv only does basic vetting). Trust is still established by review, but instead of before it happens after publication - and you can decide whether you trust the reviewer based on their credentials.