Is the same thing that happened to academia. The people submitting papers are paying for the privilege, the people reviewing them are volunteers, and the cost to read them is out of reach for many. The people making money are just maintaining the website.
Not read, but if you peer review something outside of your field. Experts should be able to see you’re off field and not assign the same level of credibility to that peer review
I just reviewed a paper for a major journal and felt bad for participating, but what else are we to do? Submit everything to arxiv, but when asked to review, seems you should review
Is the same thing that happened to academia. The people submitting papers are paying for the privilege, the people reviewing them are volunteers, and the cost to read them is out of reach for many. The people making money are just maintaining the website.
Couldn’t this easily be solved by one university building a platform?
I understand there’s a need to verify people actually are who they are and have credibility on the topic they review.
So starting out utilising uni logins or something alike, and you’ll have all university professors included
Why would you restrict who’s allowed to read the publications based on the “credibility” of the reader?
That’s not the problem, the problem is that the journals legally restrict you from making your publication openly accessible.
Not read, but if you peer review something outside of your field. Experts should be able to see you’re off field and not assign the same level of credibility to that peer review
Believe it or not, Epstein connects to that… or at least Ghislane Maxwell’s dad (Robert Maxwell)
https://youtube.com/watch?v=JnmFTvlrsOo&ra=m
I just reviewed a paper for a major journal and felt bad for participating, but what else are we to do? Submit everything to arxiv, but when asked to review, seems you should review