I agree with Atanu.
The free riders are the publishers, journals, etc. that profit from
the current system--they charge authors to publish papers, they own
the copyrights, they usually do not allow or charge additional fees
for authors to post their work to their own website, and then they
expect us to review 'for free' lest we be 'free riders',
'unprofessional', etc. Well then, I guess some people will choose to
be 'free riders' and 'unprofessional'. If enough people make this
choice, the system will either collapse or be forced to change.
Abad
On Mar 30, 2015, at 2:57 PM, Atanu Mukherjee <gatorat...@gmail.com> wrote:
Sorry, you're just judging me without really knowing me.
"The economics are really rather different." - Prove it. Why lot of good
reviewers are NOT interested in reviewing anymore then?
"Careful, conscientious reviewing takes attention span, which is in
chronically short supply and is differentially compensated." What did you
mean by "differentially compensated", exactly?
"Productive people continue to review for "free" because they also need
reviewers to get their papers published." - If that was the case then why
did the thread started otherwise?
"If you are not reviewing at least 2-3 times the number of papers that you
submit for publication, then you are "free-riding" on the peer review
system and that behavior is not professional at all." - Not relevant at
all, just bogus personal opinion advocating current flaw-filled peer
reviewing process. If you wanna be professional, act like a professional by
paying a good salary to the reviewers and see the change you want. Period.
On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 2:17 PM, Henebry, Geoffrey <
geoffrey.hene...@sdstate.edu> wrote:
The economics are really rather different.
Careful, conscientious reviewing takes attention span, which is in
chronically short supply and is differentially compensated.
Productive people continue to review for "free" because they also need
reviewers to get their papers published.
If you are not reviewing at least 2-3 times the number of papers that you
submit for publication, then you are "free-riding" on the peer review
system and that behavior is not professional at all.
~~~~ +/*\+ ~~~~
Geoffrey M. Henebry PhD CSE
Professor, Natural Resource Management
Co-Director, Geospatial Sciences Center of Excellence (GSCE)
South Dakota State University
1021 Medary Avenue, Wecota Hall 506B
Brookings, SD 57007-3510, USA
voice: +1-605-688-5351 (-5227 FAX)
email: geoffrey.hene...@sdstate.edu
http://globalmonitoring.sdstate.edu/content/henebry-geoffrey-m
-----Original Message-----
From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news [mailto:
ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU] On Behalf Of Atanu Mukherjee
Sent: Monday, March 30, 2015 11:28 AM
To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] fabricated reviews lead to retractions of papers
Yes, people would continue declining to do reviews because at the end they
don't see an extra penny. Let me ask you how much the journals charge for a
paper? Lot of the journals charge a decent amount of money to the authors
for publishing but the people who perform the major role behind the
journals' success get unpaid. Sorry, either you pay the reviewers (nobody
is interested in your subscription waiver or something like that) a
standard money or you keep seeing the trend: "so many people decline to do
reviews these days". When you're doing business, be professional.
