Re:Open access: The true cost of science publishing
by Thrymr on Thursday March 28, 2013 @01:54PM
(#5456467)
The difference is that scientific publishers are pure middlemen: scientists themselves are the content creators, consumers, and peer reviewers. As peer reviewers they are unpaid, and as authors they often pay to publish their work. No wonder they are pissed off at the price they pay as consumers.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Open access: The true cost of science publishing
by ig1 on Thursday March 28, 2013 @02:30PM
(#5456723)
The difference is that YouTube are pure middlemen: users themselves are the content creators, consumers, and reviewers. As reviewers they are unpaid, and as creators they often pay to publish their work.
The difference is that Facebook are pure middlemen: users themselves are the content creators, consumers, and reviewers. As reviewers they are unpaid, and as creators they often pay to publish their work.
Re:Open access: The true cost of science publishing
by RabbitAngstrom on Thursday March 28, 2013 @03:35PM
(#5457128)
Interesting point; in the scientific community some are quite honored by being chosen as a peer reviewer. It's like a rite of passage.
The only difference I can see is that the YouTube/Facebook reviewer title is a lot easier to come by. I thought it more akin to Amazon Vine, but at least then you get to keep the things you test!