Re: On-line Paleo. Pubs.

From
Date
Reply-To
In message <199501312213.OAA25935@violet.berkeley.edu> Peter Rauch writes:
> >Date: Tue, 31 Jan 1995 19:30:41 GMT
> >From: henry@chiswick.demon.co.uk (Henry Gee)
> 
> >Peter Rauch noted that reviewers (and many editors) don't work for free, 
> >their expenses are usually absorbed by the host institution. Certainly,
> >reviewers for NATURE conventionally work for nothing, not even thanks, but
> >we'd be sunk without them (so thanks, everyone, you know who you are).
> 
> Do NATURE's manuscript reviewers _really_ work for nothing? Do they
> ever take time from work to review manuscripts, or do they do it
> after work at home always (and by the way deprive their families of
> family time)? Do they ever use their organizations' mailing/franking/
> phone/email/secretarial/wordprocessing/services to work on/receive/
> transmit manuscripts, employers' office space/lighting/heating/
> trash removal/etc?
> Peter

Peter is quite right. When I said that NATURE's reviewers do it 'for free',
I meant that NATURE doesn't actually send them a cheque. So why do they keep
on doing it? I think the answer is 'goodwill': authors and reviewers are 
not mutually exclusive, and most people who expect their manuscripts to be
reviewed promptly and fairly will do the same for others. This unwritten
rule of 'do unto others' is abused surprisingly rarely -- this kind of 
goodwill is one of those valuable things that cannot be enumerated in $$$, and  
contributes to the health and growth of any discipline.

As Peter notes, the costs of reviewing are often borne by institutions in lots
of little ways. I know this as some (no names, no pack drill) are known to
take a dim view of their scientists spending a lot of time doing extramural
work that doesn't net actual funds for the institution. That's what happens when
accountants have a bigger say than scientists in the management of the
scientific endeavour.

Another point someone else raised about online journals, that they could
dramatically reduce the time between submission and publication. I doubt
if this would be true. At NATURE, and I suspect at every other journal, most
time is taken up with the reviewing process itself. Reviewers will deliberate
for the same length of time no matter if the journal is print-on-paper, 
electronic or carved in stone. They are only human. I *can* see a cost 
(and time) saving in the obvious place -- shipping and distribution, now
(as ever was) by regular mail, slow and expensive.
 
Henry Gee

------------------------------------------------------------
Nature,                          henry@chiswick.demon.co.uk
4 Little Essex Street,           naturelondon@mcimail.com
London WC2R 3LF                  nature@naturedc.com
tel +44 171 836 6633 x 2473      fax +44 171 836 9934
------------------------------------------------------------