THREAD: A marxist analysis on why peer-review in journals takes too long
The last couple of days the long waiting times that authors have to endure before hearing back from the journals they submit papers to became a topic of discussion again here on Twitter. A number of... 1/n
The last couple of days the long waiting times that authors have to endure before hearing back from the journals they submit papers to became a topic of discussion again here on Twitter. A number of... 1/n
...journal editors (myself included) have pointed out that the main problem lies with securing reliable referee reports. It's very common to have to ask 10, 15 people before finding two good souls who say 'yes' to the referee requests for a single paper. Sadly, it's also... 2/n
...common that referees then fail to deliver a report, despite reminders, and so 2,5 months later the editor needs to look for a different referee. In other words, even with the most diligent of editors, it's not uncommon that it takes months before 2 referee reports are in. 3/n
But why are referees saying 'no' so often? Are people not sufficiently collegial? Is everyone free riding? While there are for sure some free riders (and I see them, as we keep stats of who says no while still submitting papers to the journal!), I think the main... 4/n
...problem is simply that everyone is already so busy and overworked, and thus with no time for 'incidentals' like refereeing papers. And why is everyone so overworked? Well, mostly because higher ed is now severely underfunded, which means that there are few jobs, and so... 5/n
...a lot of competition for the few jobs around. The 'lucky few' who do have these jobs in turn have a heavy workload, as in practice they are doing the work that should be done by 2 (or more!) people rather than one. Those who don't have jobs embark on a publish-or-perish... 6/n
... frenzy, which means that the number of papers being written and submitted sky-rocketed in the last 10 years, while the pool of referees has not really increased. E.g. now grad students are expected to publish, but for the most part cannot yet serve as referees. 7/n
Moral of the story for me is that yes, the system is at breaking point, but it's a symptom of a much larger problem, namely underfunded higher ed. It won't change as long as higher ed continues to be starved as it has been in many places in recent years. 8/n
(Of course, there's also the problem of commercial academic publishers who get people to work for them for free while making insane profit. But that's a topic for another thread, and not the only problem here because non-for-profit journals have the same struggle.) 9/n
So call me pessimistic, but short of fighting capitalism and the undervaluing of education and of higher ed in particular, I don't quite see how the peer review/publication system can be fixed. Happy to be proved wrong, but I've been in this business long enough to know... 10/n
...that this is just a symptom of a much larger, more complicated and really ugly problem. END 11/11
Oh, and let me take the opportunity to thank from the ❤️ my dear, diligent referees! I know many of you are reading this: your work is deeply appreciated 👍😊
@mjinglis the thread I was telling you about.
