In response to this movement, the editors of Nature defend the value they add to the scientific process as follows: "[publishing original research requires us to] undertake careful assessment of scientific significance, and the refereeing stage involves much deliberation, occasional debate and revisions that significantly enhance the robustness and scientific impact of the paper".[1]
In other words, the editors of a respected scientific journal are openly admitting they would rather have all critical assessments, deliberations, debates, and revisions take place behind closed doors instead of out in the open, where it would benefit society the most! They don't see that they are reducing societal welfare!
I suspect the folks at Elsevier and the like are rationalizing their outdated business models with similarly flawed, self-serving logic. What a shame.
Comments
In response to this movement, the editors of Nature defend the value they add to the scientific process as follows: "[publishing original research requires us to] undertake careful assessment of scientific significance, and the refereeing stage involves much deliberation, occasional debate and revisions that significantly enhance the robustness and scientific impact of the paper".[1]
In other words, the editors of a respected scientific journal are openly admitting they would rather have all critical assessments, deliberations, debates, and revisions take place behind closed doors instead of out in the open, where it would benefit society the most! They don't see that they are reducing societal welfare!
I suspect the folks at Elsevier and the like are rationalizing their outdated business models with similarly flawed, self-serving logic. What a shame.
[1] http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v481/n7382/full/481409a...