• @merc
    link
    English
    49 months ago

    The challenge is the peer review system - not saying it can’t be done, but facilitating quality reviews is often costly.

    What’s the cost? People aren’t paid for peer reviews, right? So, is it just difficult to arrange peer reviews?

      • @merc
        link
        English
        39 months ago

        Which should really be pretty minor.

        • @RvTV95XBeo
          link
          English
          39 months ago

          It requires full time technical staff.

          The way I see it, this “free” journal is gonna have some overhead, from servers to maintainers, coordinators, and potentially even designers to help get consistency.

          Some people may be able to support with their free time, but ultimately if those people/systems are going to be paid, the platform will need a revenue stream, and like magic we’re back to square one, albeit with hopefully significantly lower profit margins.

          • @merc
            link
            English
            19 months ago

            It requires full time technical staff.

            A few, but doing what? It’s not like they need hundreds of people.

            • @RvTV95XBeo
              link
              English
              29 months ago

              For any one journal, very few, maybe even fractions of a headcount per journal, but for the thousands of journals out there spanning dozens of disciplines and hundreds of specialties, it adds up. If you want to make the end-all-be-all magic journal of all-topicness and maintain a respectable level of quality, you’re going to need quite a few SMEs policing the submissions.

              There’s millions of scientific papers published annually - you need people to process all of that information and moderate peer reviews.

              • @merc
                link
                English
                19 months ago

                but for the thousands of journals out there

                Ok, but we’re talking about thousands of dollars in fees for a single journal. There’s no reason that a single journal should have costs anywhere near thousands of dollars for a single article.

                • @RvTV95XBeo
                  link
                  English
                  19 months ago

                  The average number of articles published per journal per year is ~110. Let’s say a major journal publishes probably closer to 300/yr.

                  Assuming you try and barebones it with 3 staff members, a technical lead for screening, a graphics / visual editor, and a peer review manager. Assume you want someone relatively competent for your journal so you pay each (inclusive of overhead & benefits) ~$150k/yr.

                  $150k/yr × 3 / 300 articles = $1.5k/article

                  Again, not saying it’s a perfect system and things can definitely benefit from economies of scale, but it really doesn’t take much to get $1k/article in expenses to pile up.

                  • @merc
                    link
                    English
                    19 months ago

                    I’m not convinced that 3 full time staff is barebones given that the writing and formatting is being done by the authors, and that a solid chunk of what normally falls under the editing umbrella is being done by peer reviewers who are also unpaid.

                    Even if that is a fair representation of the cost to the journal to get the article published, that would mean they would break even, maybe even earn a profit purely on the submission fees. Never mind that multiple universities pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to subscribe to the journals.