<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra">On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Paul Colin de Gloucester <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Colin_Paul_Gloster@acm.org" target="_blank">Colin_Paul_Gloster@acm.org</a>></span> wrote:</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><blockquote style="margin:0 0 0 40px;border:none;padding:0px"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<b>SH:</b> The natural way to charge for the service of peer review then will be on a "no-fault basis," with the author's institution or funder paying for each round of refereeing, *regardless of outcome (acceptance, revision/re-refereeing, or rejection)*. This will minimize cost while protecting against inflated acceptance rates and decline in quality standards." </blockquote>
</div></div></blockquote><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><b>CPG:</b> The cost of refereeing would be more than nothing, and many journals do not pay referees.<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div style>I didn't say it would be nothing; I said it would be minimal (compared to subscription revenues, per article: $1000-5000+). I also did not say referees would be or should be paid: it is the management of the refereeing process (picking referees and adjudicating referee reports and revisions) that I estimated would cost about $200 per round of no-fault refereeing.</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>Many thanks for the references to the non-OA stings, below.</div><div style><br></div><div style>Stevan Harnad</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
More stings of refereeing of non-open-access journals:<br>
<br>
Seidl, C., & Schmidt, U., & Grösche, P. (2005). The performance of peer review and a beauty contest of referee processes of economics journals. Estudios de Economía Aplicada, 23(3): 505-551,<br>
<a href="HTTP://DialNet.UniRioja.Es/descarga/articulo/1394347.pdf" target="_blank">HTTP://DialNet.UniRioja.Es/<u></u>descarga/articulo/1394347.pdf</a><br>
<br>
de Gloucester, P. C. (2013). Referees Often Miss Obvious Errors in<br>
Computer and Electronic Publications. Accountability in Research:<br>
Policies and Quality Assurance, 20(3), 143-166.<br>
<br>
Also see:<br>
<br>
Labbé, C., & Labbé, D. (2013). Duplicate and fake publications in the scientific literature: How many SCIgen papers in computer science? Scientometrics, 94(1): 379-396.<br>
<br>
Newton, D. P. (2010). Quality and Peer Review of Research: An<br>
Adjudicating Role for Editors. Accountability in Research: Policies<br>
and Quality Assurance, 17(3), 130-145, this is available as open<br>
access:<br>
<a href="http://WWW.TandFonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08989621003791945#tabModule" target="_blank">WWW.TandFonline.com/doi/full/<u></u>10.1080/08989621003791945#<u></u>tabModule</a><br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Paul Colin de Gloucester</blockquote></div><br></div></div>