On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 4:02 PM, Jean-Claude Guédon < jean.claude.gue...@umontreal.ca> wrote:
> ** > More precisely, reviews are financed in part by the institutions that > harbour the reviewers. Reviewers are not paid; they simply can transform > this work into "symbolic capital" if their institution includes this kind > of activity in their annual report. To that extent, it can be said that the > institution acts as a fairy godmother (what an expression!!! Whoever came > with that one?) by counting review time as institutional work. This said, > researchers rarely work on fixed schedules. Thinking, reading, etc., does > not go on from 9 to 5. Ad researchers will review, whatever their > institution decides for their annual report. All this must amount to at > least a seventh-degree effect, if not more. > > We should also remember that reviewing is not just of scholarly articles. Other important reviews include: * reviews of departments and facilities. I have done many of these both for universities and for research funders. * reviews of staff members (e.g. for tenure or promotion) * review of research grant proposals. Most of this is unpaid - there is sometimes a daily allowance. I have also done this while not being employed by a university. It is incorrect to suggest that review of scholarly publications is impossible without the services provided by costs-money publishers. And, I suspect, that goes for the publication process as well. It's conservatism and the taxpayer money that keeps it going the way it is. Again it wouldn't cost nothing but it could be done for a lower figure that 10 Billion USD. -- Peter Murray-Rust Reader in Molecular Informatics Unilever Centre, Dep. Of Chemistry University of Cambridge CB2 1EW, UK +44-1223-763069
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
