Paul and all: With respect to (not) compensating peer
reviewers,
I was surprised that Enrico Balli's (SISSA) message of 3/27
apparently went by without comment. I'm reproducing it here
and
wondering what reaction readers have to SISSA's plan. Ann
Okerson
******
From: Enrico M. Balli <enrico medialab.sissa.it>
Date: Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 8:36 PM
Subject: R: Rewarding reviewers
To: liblicense-llists.yale.edu
The real value of scientific journals today is the
peer-review
processing. Indeed, the development of the electronic
archives
has diminished the importance of the scientific journals as
conveyors of information, as they are no longer the main
sources
of scientific information. Keeping in mind these facts,
SISSA
started several years ago JHEP, the Journal of High Energy
Physics, which is now among the journals with the highest
impact
factor in his field. We believe that the main reason for
this
success of our journal is the high quality of the
peer-review
process.
Given that peer review is the most valuable asset of
journals, in
the spirit that scientific work should be remunerated, we
have
decided to allocate funds for this purpose and to pay a
token fee
for every referee report beginning in 2008. We strongly feel
that
this new practice in the policy of scientific journals is
the
right step on the way to further improve the quality of our
peer
review process.
Enrico M. Balli
Sissa Medialab
Via L. Stock 2/2, 34135 Trieste
T. +39-040-3787620
F. +39-040-3787615
On Fri, 18 Apr 2008, Paul N. Courant wrote:
> I love the idea that, in Joe's words, " ... we
will see an increasing
> amount of activity in this area, as the larger research
universities
> (the primary creators of intellectual property) express
resentment in a
> multitude of ways for not being compensated for their
research and
> publishing activities."
>
> It would be wonderful if large research universities
would express this
> resentment to the commercial and nominally nonprofit
publishers that get
> their content and reviewing services from faculty and
research scholars
> who are paid by universities. So far, I don't see it,
but we can hope.
> Of course, in the this formulation the problem facing
research
> universities lies with publishers (some, not all) and
not with the likes
> of Georgia State.
>
> Paul N. Courant
> University Librarian and Dean of Libraries
> Harold T. Shapiro Collegiate Professor of Public
Policy
> Professor of Economics and of Information
> The University of Michigan
> 734-764-9356
>
>
> Joe Esposito wrote:
>
> [MOD NOTE: See full complaint at:
> http://www.publishers.org/main/Press
Center/documents/GSUlawsuitcomplaint.pdf]
>
>> From "Inside Higher Ed""
>
> Three publishers sued Georgia State University Tuesday,
charging that
> digitally distributed course materials were violating
their copyrights,
> The New York Times reported. The case could be the
online equivalent of
> litigation waged by publishers years ago against
printed coursepacks -
> although those suits were generally filed against copy
shops. Georgia
> State told the Times that it hadn't seen the suit and
couldn't comment,
> but the publishers' lawyer told the newspaper that the
university had
> asserted its rights to use the material. The lawyer
said that several
> other universities, contacted with similar complaints,
had agreed to
> change policies. Cambridge University Press, Oxford
University Press,
> and Sage Publications filed the suit.
>
> ***
>
> JE: Note that two of the plaintiffs are not-for-profit
university
> presses. This is in part a case about the "free
rider" issue, where one
> not-for-profit objects to another not-for-profit's not
carrying its own
> weight. I anticipate we will see an increasing amount
of activity in
> this area, as the larger research universities (the
primary creators of
> intellectual property) express resentment in a
multitude of ways for not
> being compensated for their research and publishing
activities.
|
