On: Editors quit top neuroscience journal to protest a...

[strangeloops85]

As an academic editor for a society journal this is ridiculous. Most of this process is automated and takes a grand total of 15 mins of time. Also, Nature charging $10k for open access while PLOS charges more like $2k should tell you what’s going on here

[YuriNiyazov → strangeloops85]

Most publishers do not have this process automated, I assure you. Even so, the theory that an automated process requires no maintenance does not hold water.

[glofish → YuriNiyazov]

First the argument that we failed to automate it hence it is expensive is feels specious.

But let's accept it at face value. And now take it all the way. Suppose you reject 15 papers for every single one accepted.

And suppose that accepted pays $3K

So what costs $200 per rejection?

What is that work that you need to put in that adds up to costing $200 per rejection? Or $300 or $500?

In my experience at least half (if not more) of the rejections come right from the editorial desk ... someone spending 5 minutes with the paper.

[YuriNiyazov → glofish]

For a high-prestige journal, you get 50 submissions per 1 published article.

Let's reject 80% of them right off the bat from the editorial desk.

We now have twenty articles left to properly peer review. I had originally said 15, so let's make it 15.

In order to get three peer reviews in an article, you have to email thirty people, because the conversion from "request to peer review" to "get a review" is 10%. So, to get 3 peer reviews, you have to email 30 people, and then maintain a funnel (some people dont respond, some people say maybe, some people say yes, but in a month, etc. etc. then reminders, follow-ups, etc.) until the peer review is done.

$200. Let's say the total cost of an employee is $50 / hour (salary + insurance + taxes). Surely it's plausible that it takes a total of 4 hours, spread across multiple months, to maintain multiple (start at 30 and then drop) threads of communication that eventually get a review to completion.

And I did not include in that calculation anything that even remotely includes any other administrative costs, or, heaven forbid, "how much the CEO makes"

[YeGoblynQueenne → YuriNiyazov]

>> In order to get three peer reviews in an article, you have to email thirty people, because the conversion from "request to peer review" to "get a review" is 10%. So, to get 3 peer reviews, you have to email 30 people, and then maintain a funnel (some people dont respond, some people say maybe, some people say yes, but in a month, etc. etc. then reminders, follow-ups, etc.) until the peer review is done.

All that is either handled automatically -sending emails to people who submitted articles on online submission systems- or performed by unpaid editors -soliciting reviews, desk rejection or communicating with authors to request clarifications or respond to questions, chasing reviewers, and so on, and so forth.

But, hey, if the editors in your journal get paid for all this drudgery, then please let me know where to apply.

[YuriNiyazov → YeGoblynQueenne]

As I've already pasted elsewhere, you can apply to a publisher that pays its editors at https://www.mdpi.com/editors

[AlexandrB → YuriNiyazov]

> Most publishers do not have this process automated

This kind of points to rent-seeking or cartel behavior, doesn't it? If this was a competitive market a publisher could get an upper hand by automating and offering their services at a lower rate.