On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Paul Colin de Gloucester
colin_paul_glos...@acm.org wrote:
*SH:* The natural way to charge for the service of peer review then will be
on a no-fault basis, with the author's institution or funder paying for
each round of refereeing, *regardless of outcome
And the result of this effective market is that wealth will become an
important factor in the determination of scientific prestige. In fact,
this coupling of prestige and financing is exactly what the Grand
Conversation of science should never accept or accommodate.
If, moreover, you measure
Very true, Jean-Claude. It is the sole value of the subscription publishing
industry is that it does not cost the author or his/her institution
anything. Cost burdens are pushed on those who can pay (but have
second-order interest in paying). Institutional presses and professional
societies
On 5 October 2013 23:31, Stevan Harnad amscifo...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Oct 5, 2013 at 4:31 PM, Graham Triggs grahamtri...@gmail.comwrote:
In an author-pays model, the author is paying in part for the
peer-review, editing,
production, distribution - which are all replicable and
