On 15-Jan-09 0:44, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> One of the reasons why things are a bit changing is that it used to be 
>> so that the publisher did a final correction, made nice illustrations 
>> and did the final layout.
> 
> Well, that and the peer review. But the peer review was usually done by 
> unpaid peers,

Still is. I actually have a paper here that I have to review. It always 
takes a lot of time to do well. Even if I spend two full days rereading 
and checking the literature, I still get paid the same as the guy who 
simply writes: "I don't like it" (That actually seem to have happened at 
least once).

>  so it comes to close to the same thing. The journal was 
> really providing reputation more than anything. Reputation is something 
> that nobody can monopolise, tho.

Post a reply to this message