At The Scientist:
The Internet helped democratize publishing. Scientists today can post a body of research and allow all interested readers to evaluate the work’s merit. This is why some scientists are now uploading pre-refereed work to servers like ArXiv and the life science-focused BioRxiv. Posting their work on public archives also ensures that anybody who wishes to access the work can read it for free. Post-publication review has traditionally been implemented in the—peer-reviewed and edited—pages of journals, but is now being done in newer fora (e.g. PubPeer). In addition, post-publication review is replacing pre-publication review in some new open-access journals (e.g., F1000 Research and PeerJ).
But she adds,
Aside from historical inertia, one of the main reasons that the current publishing system prevails is the prestige associated with publishing papers in top-tier journals. Publishing in top journals is a proxy utilized by hiring and promotion committees to make important decisions and thus can have immense impact on early scientists’ careers. Because hiring and promotion committees are often made up of scholars who are not experts in the field of the investigator they are charged with reviewing, they tend to depend on journals—which rely on expert reviewers in the field—to evaluate the work of their colleague.
Until the scientific community develops an alternative model for evaluating the impact of an investigator’s work, the hierarchical journal system will persist. And because alternative publishing platforms have not yet achieved such prestige, there is little incentive for researchers—especially junior investigators—to choose them. (As a junior faculty member at a large state university in the Southwest who wished to remain anonymous told me: “The kinds of journals that have post publication peer review are not high impact, and are not viewed favorably by promotion and tenure committees.”)
No, but what’s the down side? Academic status: Some of us won’t soon forget being expected to pay $35 for a review of a book in Nature, when the book itself cost way less.
That’s status for you! All bellow, no beef.
One of my friends uses a rude expression to describe that kind of thing, but under the careful guidance of kairosfocus and other excellent UD authors, I will not succumb.
See also: If peer review is working, why all the retractions?
Follow UD News at Twitter!