 |
 |
Kia ora Rob, I would definitely support the fund for students and conference attendance. I also agree that being paid for labour does not necessarily compromise the quality of the review process. Ngaa mihi, Holly. Dr Holly Randell-Moon Department of Media, Film and Communication University of Otago PO Box 56 Dunedin 9054 New Zealand Tel 64 3 479 3724 http://www.otago.ac.nz/mfco/staff/otago052356.html<https://www.otago.ac.nz/mfco/staff/otago052356.html> 'You give way to an enemy this evil with this much power and you condemn the galaxy to an eternity of submission' - Jyn Erso I SUPPORT HUMANITIES AT OTAGO<http://teu.ac.nz/portfolio/love-humanities/> Editor, Somatechnics<https://www.euppublishing.com/loi/soma> Race and Whiteness Studies/ Religion Area Chair, Popular Culture Association of Australia and New Zealand<http://popcaanz.com/> Security, Race, Biopower: Essays on Technology and Corporeality<https://www.palgrave.com/us/book/9781137554079> Religion After Secularization in Australia<https://www.palgrave.com/br/book/9781137536891> On 29/05/2018, at 5:21 PM, Fletcher, Robert <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: Dear all, As editor of a journal for a for-profit publisher I have been thinking about these issues for some time. In part for us this is a purely pragmatic issue as we like all other journals I think are increasingly struggling to find sufficient reviewers for our papers and hence are striving for ways to motivate people to do the extra work on top of already-excessive workloads. This seems to be an issue for for-proft and open access journals alike (https://fennia.journal.fi/article/view/66862). I don't buy into the critique that paying reviewers will compromise quality as we are already paid to evaluate book manusctips/proposals and no one seems to raise concerns about that (in my experience review quality seems mixed whether the work is paid or not!). And there is already a precedent for paying journal reviewers; one U of California journal at least has started to do this: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/01/new-open-access-journal-plans-pay-peer-reviewers They give an option to either take the payment in cash or put it towards the charge for publishing open access in the same journal. But in this latter case of course the money goes right back to the publisher to pay for what are often already exorbitant APCs. In considering all of this, we have been discussing ways we might better motivate reviewers and value their labor without commodifying the review process itself. One idea on the table is to offer reviewers the option to have money contributed to a fund to support students and underemployed researchers to attend conferences or do other professional development activities. So I am wondering if list members might support this idea, or can suggest other ways that even for-profit publishers might better value the review process and contribute to the building of a research commons without directly compensating reviewers themselves. Best, Rob ________________________________ From: A forum for critical and radical geographers <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on behalf of Holly Randell-Moon <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> Sent: Tuesday, May 29, 2018 1:00 AM To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Scientific journal publishing houses : PAY-PER-REVIEW: make it mandatory for scientific journals to remunerate reviewers. Kia ora koutou, I'm enjoying this discussion! I agree with Giorgos' points though regarding the labour we give to for-profit publishers. Theoretically this 'free' labour is paid for by our salaries but in many universities, journal editing and peer reviewing are not formally counted as part of a staff member's workload. So in my department for example, journal editors and peer reviewers are meant to do these activities in their 'spare time' as we are not allocated time in our formal workloads. The justification seems to be that as researchers it's up to us how use our time to generate research esteem (through journal editing for example) but this work really is done in my spare time. I don't have a problem doing peer reviews for open-access journals but I do wonder why wonder so much of our time is lent to for-profit publishers. I've never been paid as a journal editor, peer reviewer, writer, or book editor and a co-author on a recent book chapter (who works in the online news industry) wondered why we would contribute our chapter for free to the book. Ngaa mihi, Holly. Dr Holly Randell-Moon Department of Media, Film and Communication University of Otago PO Box 56 Dunedin 9054 New Zealand Tel 64 3 479 3724 http://www.otago.ac.nz/mfco/staff/otago052356.html 'You give way to an enemy this evil with this much power and you condemn the galaxy to an eternity of submission' - Jyn Erso I SUPPORT HUMANITIES AT OTAGO<http://teu.ac.nz/portfolio/love-humanities/> Editor, Somatechnics<https://www.euppublishing.com/loi/soma> Race and Whiteness Studies/ Religion Area Chair, Popular Culture Association of Australia and New Zealand<http://popcaanz.com/> Security, Race, Biopower: Essays on Technology and Corporeality<http://www.palgrave.com/us/book/9781137554079> Religion After Secularization in Australia<http://www.palgrave.com/br/book/9781137536891> ________________________________ From: A forum for critical and radical geographers <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> on behalf of Giorgos <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> Sent: Monday, 28 May 2018 10:57 p.m. To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: Scientific journal publishing houses : PAY-PER-REVIEW: make it mandatory for scientific journals to remunerate reviewers. Thanks Simone. these are all good points. We already get paid separately for other tasks, such as publishing books or reviewing book proposals. Many journals also pay journal editors. In principle I think we should be paid also for writing articles published by for-profit publishers (why should articles be different than books?). For articles, publishers can at least in principle make an argument that they are offering us a service by publishing and distributing our work. But for peer-review there is no such argument whatsoever. We are doing work for free, that is not benefiting us and we dont get anything in return, in kind or in money, from the journal. That the public is paying through our salaries for work that is appropriated by corporations is outrageous (paying public workers to work for private companies). The long-term strategy is of course open access, I agree. To open access journals we can give our work voluntarily in expectation of others doing the same for us, and no one profiting along the way. But in the meantime, and while we still operate within the market framework publishing and reviewing for corporate publishers, then we should be paid. I dont like the market system. But if I work for it, I want a salary. Best, Giorgos ------- Giorgos Kallis<http://www.icrea.cat/Web/ScientificStaff/Georgios-Kallis--481>, ICREA Professor, ICTA, Edifici Z, Despatx Z/105 Carrer de les columnes, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona E- 08193 Bellaterra (Cerdanyola del Vallès - Barcelona) [https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0B6kYf6Lig0_ZaFZ1NzZyMVVNdlU&revid=0B6kYf6Lig0_ZZkdxb3lNM0R2UHVWSm1nUnRqOUxQTEU2c0JnPQ]<http://www.indefenseofdegrowth.com<http://www.indefenseofdegrowth.com/>>[http://howtowriteanacademicpaper.com/images/logo-type-black.png]<http://www.howtowriteanacademicpaper.com<http://www.howtowriteanacademicpaper.com/>> On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 11:49 AM, simone tulumello <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote: Thanks Giorgos, but I definitely do not agree. Peer-review is one component of the work we do as researchers/scholars - which should be paid by our institutions. Why should this particular component of our work be paid separatedly? There are other activities that result in profit for others that are not paid: what about writing? The problem is that we still publish with for-profit journals, though there is no reason whatsoever at this point of history. Dealing with the issue by further commodifying the publication process is going in the exact opposite direction as the one we should advocate... 2018-05-28 10:01 GMT+01:00 Giorgos <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]><mailto:[log in to unmask]>>: I signed this petition started by a friend: https://chn.ge/2wEgN5q I think is a very reasonable demand. ------- Giorgos Kallis<http://www.icrea.cat/Web/ScientificStaff/Georgios-Kallis--481>, ICREA Professor, ICTA, Edifici Z, Despatx Z/105 Carrer de les columnes, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona E- 08193 Bellaterra (Cerdanyola del Vallès - Barcelona) [https://docs.google.com/uc?export=download&id=0B6kYf6Lig0_ZaFZ1NzZyMVVNdlU&revid=0B6kYf6Lig0_ZZkdxb3lNM0R2UHVWSm1nUnRqOUxQTEU2c0JnPQ]<http://www.indefenseofdegrowth.com<http://www.indefenseofdegrowth.com/>>[http://howtowriteanacademicpaper.com/images/logo-type-black.png]<http://www.howtowriteanacademicpaper.com<http://www.howtowriteanacademicpaper.com/>> -- Simone Tulumello Post-doc research fellow, ULisboa, Instituto de Ciências Sociais latest publications: Tulumello S (2017) Fear, Space and Urban Planning. Springer (link<http://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783319439365>) / Tulumello S (2017) The multi-scalar nature of urban security and public safety. Urban Affairs Review (link<http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1078087417699532>) / Tulumello S Healey P (2016) Questioning planning, connecting places and times. plaNext special issue (link<http://journals.aesop-planning.eu/volume-3/>) / Tulumello S (2018) Neoliberalisation of Security, Austerity and the 'End of Public Policy' ACME (link<https://www.acme-journal.org/index.php/acme/article/view/1537>) webpage<http://www.ics.ulisboa.pt/pessoas/simone.tulumello> / blog<http://simonetulumello.wordpress.com/> / academia.edu<http://academia.edu/><http://unipa.academia.edu/SimoneTulumello> / flickr<http://www.flickr.com/photos/simotulu/> / twitter <http://twitter.com/SimTulum>