I am With Martin on This One, Review Only for Open Access Journals

Martin Weller in his post ‘The return on peer review’ estimates that academics, often paid by the taxpayer, devote large amounts of time unpaid to perform peer review. He estimates the monetary value is between USD 305 million and 2.7 billion (from THE) per annum. The sensible outcome is for the reviewed papers to appear in open access journals viewable by the taxpayer paymasters, in other words the public. Hear, hear!

To make his point strongly Martin now will only review papers destined for open access journals. I’m with you on this one, Martin, and will definitely follow suit.

About Michael Rees
Linking the crowd with the cloud

2 Responses to I am With Martin on This One, Review Only for Open Access Journals

  1. kate says:

    interesting… i recently did a peer review exercise with students, where they reviewed each others’ work in a double blind process. reading their reflections on the process did make me think about the time it takes me to complete reviews. to do it well really takes a significant investment, but i guess i’ve just always considered it part of my role as a professional – part of my job, even though i’ve largely done it on my own time.

    the review process itself needs a good shake up. i’m confounded by the fact that library technology conferences frequently ask for submission of articles a good 5-6 months before the conference in order to facilitate review, and the abstract needs to be submitted a good six months before that. from idea to presentation, you’re looking at a year. if you’re trying to research and write around emerging technology, as i am, that length of time is just absurd. (so absurd that a colleague and i have submitted an abstract for one of these conferences, proposing a paper that will look at whether traditional conference models work for technology conferences.)

    reviewing only for open access journals is not only a good way to make a point about the cost of peer review, but also a great way to promote the open access movement.

    thanks for sharing this!

  2. Why not review for the 63% of non-OA journals that are nevertheless on the side of the angels, in that they endorse immediate Green Open Access self-archiving by their authors?

%d bloggers like this: