
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: SAGE rolls out rewards program for all journal reviewers



I would suggest that there is a lot of difference between the ways in which
the peer review is done by journals depending on both the discipline and the
wishes of the editor or editorial board and no doubt also the electronic
editorial systems (though they are often flexible) often bought in from an
outside company. This is well known and there is a lot of literature about
double blind peer review, single blind and such like and the views of
editors and authors about which system is preferable.

I suppose it would be possible for each publisher to calculate notional
costs for each journal about time taken etc but the only information which
can be given easily is the costs per journal of Editorial Manager or
Manuscript Central (to name two of the leading systems) which are
confidential as so many such arrangements are in the case both of libraries
as well as publishers. I do not think that reviewers would like to put in
time sheets. As a reviewer I would certainly not wish to do this.

As far as openness is concerned some journals do explain how they do peer
review in some detail and others do not. Again it depends usually on what
the editors want or will allow publishers to disclose. Publishers have every
reason to do their best to improve the way peer review is accomplished and
to boast about the quality of what they do. I cannot understand what is
meant by "hidden" here. I am not aware of most publishers hiding their
systems and indeed the only publishers who do not seem keen on doing proper
peer review are those OA publishers recently exposed by The Charleston
Advisor: they are not members of OASPA I hasten to add.

I cannot imagine how Sage can possibly work out the value of giving access
to all their journals will be. As most of the academic reviewers access
journals as members of institutions and there are relatively few personal
subscribers the losses Sage might be very small though of course setting up
the systems and administering them will incur some level of manual
intervention and some cost therefore though as it is across the board not
that much.

Anthony

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of FrederickFriend
Sent: 12 February 2011 16:44
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: Re: SAGE rolls out rewards program for all journal reviewers

The message below provides a welcome acknowledgment of the
contribution made to the quality of academic journals by the
academic community world-wide. The cynic in me wonders whether
the timing of the announcement has anything to do with the
announcement of an enquiry into the peer review system by the
Science and Technology Committee of the UK Parliament, but it
would be ungracious not to thank Sage for this gesture.

The serious point is that the value of the contribution made by
the academic community to journal quality needs to be brought
into open debate. This is not to dismiss the value of a
publisher's paid editorial staff in maintaining quality, but the
financial value of time and expertise by unpaid peer reviewers
has for too long been a hidden vital part of the journal business
model. Recent work by JISC Collections has shown the financial
value of the contribution made by UK academics, and if these
costs were to be extrapolated world-wide and built into
publishers' business models, the entire journal publishing
industry would collapse. The cost of peer review would be too
high to be recouped through journal prices. It would be good to
know the value of the free access for peer reviewers Sage have
built into their spreadsheets, but no doubt we shall be told that
this is confidential information.

Many peer reviewers are happy to give their time to undertake
peer review without any payment, and some use it as a way to keep
in touch with the work of their peers. Nevertheless their
employing institutions may have an interest in the time spent on
peer review, and currently universities receive no acknowledgment
or benefit from the contribution made by their researchers to the
journal business model. The basic point is that more openness is
needed about the cost and value of peer review. The system is
generally recognised to provide an assurance of quality, although
greater openness in the way the system operates could prevent the
occasional academic scandal when the system fails.

Fred Friend
https://liblicense.crl.edu/ListArchives/1102/msg00059.html
liblicense.crl.edu
CC-MAIN-2024-33
19631
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:XCNIJGDWVCPYBY747RE43CWB5PNQOVVC
<urn:uuid:6da4b1f0-330a-4d90-bcae-a9946999e3da>
2024-08-07T05:53:23Z
23.185.0.4
text/html
sha1:OONWAV57OCHBPGO34K6UKXNQJ26JPDVT
<urn:uuid:3c93e80d-5dad-48b9-96c0-9388fe11fed6>
https://liblicense.crl.edu/ListArchives/1102/msg00059.html
response
<urn:uuid:5c86dd70-e759-421a-8678-540712b7f0cc>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2024-33
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for August 2024
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-150
software: Apache Nutch 1.20 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.5-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/