is the easiest way to share online.
Learn more »
Creating a two-tier academic system of rich and poor: Now, money fast-tracks journal submissions!
March 16, 2011
7 other people
_Obesity Reviews_ has a “Fast Track Facility”: A submission fee of $1,000 or £750 for articles up to 9000 words long, or $1500 for articles more than 9,000 words long guarantees peer-review within 10 working days -
I suppose this was inevitable. -
Maybe it's inevitable, but we should protest somehow, in case it's not inevitable :) -
Wow. That's really shady. -
Money for fast peer review? When will there be money for no peer-review? -
well, this sounds like a wake-up call to me... any suggestion as to where and how to protest? -
Soon, very soon...which is exactly the wrong way to be going... -
commoditization might be a key term to search (Suber 2009)
, commoditization was apparently also talked about at OASPA conference in Prague August 2010
How does a journal "guarantee" peer review within a certain period without compromising peer review? -
Indeed ! -
we might ask journals with a very short submission<->acceptance period... -
I think reviewers must be getting a cut so that they will evaluate the paper quickly. When money is involved, they will tend to accept some borderline cases which they would reject otherwise. They want to be "cooperative" so they will get more manuscripts (=money). Some may even make a career out of this. -
MKaan - where do I sign up? Depending on the money involved, I can make my review shorter and quicker than anyone! -
Coming soon to a journal near you, Mr. Gunn :) -
Here's another one, requesting a $200 processing charge.
And another. Wow. I'm afraid of digging further.
Thanks MKaan et al., looks like these 3 journals are different publishers so it is not just an isolated case. I suppose we should start by writing a letter protesting to the journals and their publishers. The fee (and the associated compromise in standards that will sometimes occur to get the action letter done by the deadline) violates an ethic of scientific fairness. Has anyone codified fair practices by journals? We need a code to shame violators, and reduce their prestige -
I've started an open protest letter on Google Doc, I would love any help to write it, also lemme know if you're likely willing to sign on:
I've made some contributions to the letter. I'll certainly consider signing it (being cagey only because I don't know where other folks will want to go with this). -
thank you, signed as the Managing editor of an OA journal that is a Western/Russian cooperation -
Thanks. I've signed it, too. -
anything came from this, @Alex Holcombe? -
Lars Hvild alerted me to the existence of the International Committe of Medical Journal Editors (
) which sets some norms for journal behavior. Anyone have any contacts there? Otherwise I'll simply cold-email them, although that hasn't worked yet for a few other places I tried. Of course we should also send our letter in to those journals at some point. Any other ideas? You might also be interested in one journal editor's defense in the comments on my blog:
@Alex re ICMJE, if you like I am a representative of a medical journal so, yes, we 'belong', so you and me (CTT) could team up if you think that might be helpful in this regard, good idea @Lars Hvild -
@Claudia that's great! BTW we only have 6 signatories at the moment so anyone reading, please consider signing on:
@Claudia I haven't found your email, mine is alex.holcombe-AT-sydney.edu.au I'll draft an email to ICMJE for us -
info at ctt-journal.com -
I wonder if some of that money is going to pay peer reviewers to comment within a certain number of days? -
Yo Joe. No, go slow.
Alex, I doubt many people are going to read this far down the comments on this thread. I'd try posting a new item to your feed and the Science 2.0 room just saying "we think the letter is ready to go, please consider signing". I think that's a reasonable thing to do, and not spammy. -
©2013 FriendFeed -
Tools & Widgets