« Deep Reading Dylan | Main | Tyranny of the Calendar »

June 10, 2009

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c225453ef011570ed40be970b

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Quantifying the value of peer review:

Comments

Andrew Spong

I'm not sure that publishers are as hard-done by as you suggest.

Rather, I think the NIH has manifested a certain prescience in pre-dating rather than post-dating the publishers' immanent disintermediation from the process of publishing scholarly journals.

Effective alternatives for registering, distributing and archiving the literature already exist. Publishers remain instrumental in expediting the validation of the literature by means of the peer-review process, but it's not as if they actually *do* it themselves. The sliver of terrain they still occupy is being encroached upon (see the 'peer-review related' links at http://stwem.com et al), and when the communities of purpose that social media are conjoining are afforded the opportunity to manage the peer-review process themselves, it's hard to see how a society will benefit from working with a publisher rather than taking the title back in-house.

Marcus

The question is: **Should** publishers still have the right to control distribution, now that the Web is an inescapable element of scholarly communication?

Yes--the NIH Policy removes this control, and the "choices" that publishers supposedly have are false (it's like the choice to buy chicken at $3/lb with the grocery store card or $10/lb without the card.) And the publishers are not evil, just businesspeople protecting their interests.

All that said, I still support the NIH Policy--imperfect though it may be--as a necessary step toward increasing taxpayer access to publicly funded research. Perhaps NIH will need to facilitate peer review in 10 years time if this all plays out as publishers fear...or another intermediary will arise who can serve this purpose.

An analogy: Newspapers are collapsing because ad revenues haven't materialized on the Web. But if professional journalism really vanishes (blogging is important but not the same thing), I predict that non-profit foundations will fill the breach. Journalism is too important to vanish, but how we fund it might need to change. Same too for peer review, perhaps?

Publishers have every right to feel threatened, and they are all smart enough to see through the librarian doubletalk. This doesn't mean they have a tenable position.

bill

Quite right, we're all entitled to be paid for the value we add. My standard rate for peer review is $25/hr. For OA journals, I will continue to review for free.

medieval clothing

Yes--the NIH Policy removes this control, and the "choices" that publishers supposedly have are false (it's like the choice to buy chicken at $3/lb with the grocery store card or $10/lb without the card.) And the publishers are not evil, just businesspeople protecting their interests. -I agree..

Thanks for the interesting post. Keep up the good work!

The comments to this entry are closed.