A peer-review system for the ArXiv?

[jrlaguna]

OMG, it looks like I have to explain things really slowly... No, authors do not pay $1000-$10000 per article. That's the alleged cost per article, and the cost of the subscription is estimated to cover for that + some profit for the publisher. So, the scientific community as a whole pay for it, through your institutions' libraries... Is is that hard?

How can you explain the cost difference btw ArXiv ($10 per article) and standard journals? Typesetting? Not really. Edition? I don't find it easy to justify: hence my proposal.

The advise to ask the authors for a copy of their papers is really off the mark. Access is limited, that's a way to circumvent it. Very often, we scientists want to skim through a paper out of pure curiosity, I will not disturb anybody for that.

The references to my own publications are uncalled for. I have more than enough to know what I'm talking about. Seriously, I didn't think a new proposal like this would find such a harsh response here. In other forums it has found much warmer response. Some remarks are quite surprising for a working physicists... unless he or she has some business with a publisher. Is it the case?

 

[jrlaguna]

Zz, do you really think editor work (email management, pretty-printing and proofreading) is worth $10000 per article? So, with my salary as average, an editor will consider 4-5 papers per year? OMG, it would take an editor per scientist!

 

[ZapperZ]

Zz, do you really think editor work (email management, pretty-printing and proofreading) is worth $10000 per article? So, with my salary as average, an editor will consider 4-5 papers per year? OMG, it would take an editor per scientist!

What do you CARE what it costs? All you should care about is what the journal charges you for your submission! Do you care what the actual cost for a medical doctor to take care of you? No! All you care about is how much he/she charges you! There's a difference!

Your $10000 per article doesn't exist as far as an author having to pay. And from the fact that you avoided answering my question as to how many papers you've submitted and have paid, it leads me to believe that you haven't had ANY first hand knowledge of such things! And yet, you wish to argue this with me?

So who's having "faulty" knowledge here?

Zz.

 

[ZapperZ]

OMG, it looks like I have to explain things really slowly... No, authors do not pay $1000-$10000 per article. That's the alleged cost per article, and the cost of the subscription is estimated to cover for that + some profit for the publisher. So, the scientific community as a whole pay for it, through your institutions' libraries... Is is that hard?

How can you explain the cost difference btw ArXiv ($10 per article) and standard journals? Typesetting? Not really. Edition? I don't find it easy to justify: hence my proposal.

The advise to ask the authors for a copy of their papers is really off the mark. Access is limited, that's a way to circumvent it. Very often, we scientists want to skim through a paper out of pure curiosity, I will not disturb anybody for that.

The references to my own publications are uncalled for. I have more than enough to know what I'm talking about. Seriously, I didn't think a new proposal like this would find such a harsh response here. In other forums it has found much warmer response. Some remarks are quite surprising for a working physicists... unless he or she has some business with a publisher. Is it the case?

No, that isn't the case. I just happen to have interacted with my journal editors at various conferences. Try going to one of them, such as the APS April and March Meetings. You get to talk to them and get their perspective on what is going on. Unlike you, I try to gather as much info FIRST before condemning something that I don't know anything about.

If ArXiv becomes Peer-reviewed, the cost that you get charged is going to be WAY higher than $10. I can guarantee you that.

Zz.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Jrlaguna, you might stop with the strawmen and clearly state what problem you are trying to solve, and why you think a radical change of the arXiv is the way to solve it.

 

[dcpo]

I am only a humble grad student, and my publication record cannot compete with those of some of the posters in this thread (though it is non-empty), but I don't feel that jrlaguna's question has been fairly dealt with here at all.

 

[twofish-quant]

So... why not, as a first step, create a peer-review system on the ArXiv?

1) Things are extremely field dependent. In astrophysics for example, there is no problem having public access to journal articles since everything is on Arxiv and/or ADS.

In other fields, public access is a big problem, but one thing that you have to deal with is that in some fields there is a for-profit publisher with a strangle hold on publication because things are highly reputation based. Even if you *could* post papers to arxiv, people wouldn't because that doesn't count for tenure and reputation.

2) Putting peer review on arxiv defeats the purpose. The point of Arxiv is that peer review can last for months, and people want results quickly.

 

[twofish-quant]

My proposal can be made more concrete. Without entering in direct competition, ArXiv might create an experimental "peer-review" stamp, to be asked for voluntarily by submitters.

But what's the point? In astrophysics, if you want something peer-reviewed it goes to Astrophysical Journal, at which point you can download it from the ADS.

One thing that makes astrophysics different is that the gatekeeping gets done at the grant writing end and not the peer review end, and there is very, very strong political pressure to have the results available for free, which they are.

The problems that I see in astrophysics publishing relate to the fact that there are things to be "published" that don't fit into a journal format (raw data and source code) but that's a totally different issue. Most of the information is out there, but it's not published in any reasonable format.

Also the thing that I'd like to see more public access to are textbooks and semi-pedagological materials (review articles).

Now if things are different in your field, then things are different, but one reason I'd object very strongly to changing arxiv is that it works pretty well for astrophysicists, and doing anything that makes publication more heavy weight defeats the purpose. People like Arxiv precisely because it *bypasses* peer review, and much of the scientific output of astronomy and astrophysics is stuff that doesn't need to be heavily reviewed (i.e. I looked in my telescope or I ran my computer and this is what I got).

The proposal goes far beyond, extending to scientific publishing 2.0. For example: a way of discussing papers and making comments and questions. I like the idea of http://cosmocoffee.info/index.php, but it has almost no activity.

That's a big problem. David Wiley calls it the "lame party" problem. If you have technical setup for comments, it becomes a "lame party" if no one actually shows up.

Also typesetting is a big issue in some fields. In astrophysics, most people use LaTeX, but in other fields, people use Microsoft Word to create their equations, and converting Word into something that can be typeset is a huge problem, in which you have to pay someone to basically retype the article.

In astrophysics most of the research communities are small enough so that everyone knows everyone else so the discussions take place over private e-mail or at conferences.

 

[dotman]

What do you CARE what it costs?

Students should care a great deal. Those costs get passed down in the form of increased tuition. If the subscription fees are exorbitant, why not try to reduce costs, in today's day and age? When was the last time anyone photocopied an article out of a journal (as opposed to printing online, or just reading on your screen)?

I agree that it seems to add little value for excessive cost; but it hasn't been made clear how much of that cost is due to the peer-review process and how much is due to publishing.

 

[D H]

What do you CARE what it costs? All you should care about is what the journal charges you for your submission! Do you care what the actual cost for a medical doctor to take care of you? No! All you care about is how much he/she charges you!

Moral hazard. Some patients don't care how much a doctor charges them because their insurance pays most of the costs. The scientific community doesn't care how much a journal charges because scientists build those costs into their grant proposal.

That said, a fixed cost of $1,000 to $10,000 per published article sounds about right. Managing the peer review process, technical editing, layout, graphics, salaries and benefits, taxes, desktop computers, web hosting equipment, archival computers and disk farms, office space, other G&A, a bit of profit: It adds up quick. Real quick. PLoS Biology, a high impact open access journal published by a non-profit charges authors $2,900 per article.

The arxiv avoids a lot of these costs, and it shows. Make the arxiv a suite of peer-reviewed, open access journals and those $10 costs will easily jump to $1,000 or more. Make the arxiv a suite of peer-reviewed, open access journals and something will have to spring into existence to replace it.

 

[Vanadium 50]

But why?

1) There are already Open Access journals.
2) The arXiv presently serves a different purpose. Why must its function change?

 

[jrlaguna]

I care for society's cost of publication, Zz, not my own. Apparently, with the publication of three papers in an expensive journal you pay the year salary of a researcher. That's nonsensical.

Seriously, I'm extremely disappointed with the lack of courtesy and the ability to reason of some people who call themselves physicists. Zz has doubted my knowledge of the peer-review system and fails systematically to grasp my points... Fortunately, there are more understanding people in this forum.

 

[twofish-quant]

I care for society's cost of publication, Zz, not my own. Apparently, with the publication of three papers in an expensive journal you pay the year salary of a researcher. That's nonsensical.

It is, but you have the wrong board for that. Personally, I think it doesn't make sense for for-profit publishing houses to have an effective monopoly on some journals, but for the most part that's not a big problem in physics where the major journals are run by non-profit professional societies which (at least in astrophysics) have open access policies.

The other question is "does peer review make any sense at all?" In some situations the value of peer review is far, far overrated, which is why arxiv exists in the first place.

Zz has doubted my knowledge of the peer-review system and fails systematically to grasp my points...

I don't think that a single "peer review system" exists. Different fields have wildly different publication systems.

 

[ZapperZ]

I care for society's cost of publication, Zz, not my own. Apparently, with the publication of three papers in an expensive journal you pay the year salary of a researcher. That's nonsensical.

Seriously, I'm extremely disappointed with the lack of courtesy and the ability to reason of some people who call themselves physicists. Zz has doubted my knowledge of the peer-review system and fails systematically to grasp my points... Fortunately, there are more understanding people in this forum.

And I STILL think that you fail to understand what is involved in the activity of a peer-reviewed journal! I have brought up, for example, the task of an editor. It isn't easy, and it isn't cheap to maintain such a work force. Again, look up the qualification of a Phys. Rev. associate editor that have been advertized often in Physics Today.

What I am shocked with is the trivialization of what they do and what is involved. The naive argument that scientists do most of the typesetting work is an astounding example of this lack of knowledge of what is involved. You revealed, on your on volition, of your lack of knowledge of what is involved in producing such a journal. I would think that one would want to investigate this further by at least talking to a few journal editors to find out what they actually do!

Until someone here does an actual accounting of the cost of producing such a peer-reviewed journal, all the talk of how much it costs and whether such a cost is justified are idle speculation at best! Again, I would bet that if Arxiv has to process and peer-review the same number of article, per month, that PRB alone has to process, I would not be surprised if the cost shoots up considerably! So how is this any different that what we have so far?

Zz.

 

[Pythagorean]

The ultimate peer review is how often it's cited by other professionals 20 years from now.

 

[jrlaguna]

Zz, you insist on the idea that I'm a newbie in the field. I am not, I have more than 20 papers published, and I have friends who are editors of important journals (JSTAT, for example, but the J-series and NJP are very different from what other publishers do). I know what is their task, and I tell you the following.

My annual salary is around $30000 (I work as a postdoc at ICFO, in Barcelona). I produce in average 2-3 papers per year, with 2-3 collaborators who earn more or less the same amount of money. If I assume my situation is typical, this means that AUTHORING a paper costs around $30000. And you're telling me that edition can add $10000 more to the total cost? So, if an editor is paid as much as I am, this means that they edit... 3 papers per year!? Seriously!?

 

[D H]

I care for society's cost of publication, Zz, not my own. Apparently, with the publication of three papers in an expensive journal you pay the year salary of a researcher. That's nonsensical.

You are assuming a lot here.

You are assuming that journals don't make allowances for researchers who can't afford its supposedly exorbitant fees. Many, if not most, do. Those costs still exist. The fees charged to authors who can afford to pay cover (in part) the fees not charged to authors who can't pay.

You are assuming that upper end cost of $10,000 charged to the authors of a published paper. Have you found a journal that charges authors that much? Besides, $30,000 will cover a salary of about $15,000, plus benefits, taxes, a parking spot, a desk in an office, a few meager supplies, and a tiny bit of equipment. $15,000: That's a grad student's salary, not a researcher's.

You are assuming that this revamped arxiv would not charge such fees. They would. They would have to do so. The fees for the Public Library of Science journals appear to be some of the higher ones. Note that PLoS is non-profit and its journals are open access.

You are assuming that the existing arxiv would want to go this route. As is, the arxiv fills a necessary void and its very low costs are direct consequence of not being peer reviewed or edited. Were the arxiv to go this route, something would need to fill this void and the producers of arxiv would be thrust into the publishing industry.

 

[jrlaguna]

I have to explain things really slowly. So, let's try again. I never said that authors pay that much. It's the scientific community that covers for the cost, typically, through the library subscriptions.

I do not know whether the ArXiv would want to go in this direction or not. I wanted to spark discussion about the idea, and see if there are any relevant problems with it. There are not, after what I have read. But I am disappointed with a lot of people from this forum. I have discussed this idea in very different places, and this is the first place where I have to spend so much explaining the basics.

I have even discussed with editors in different journals. Somebody (I can not cite) told me there was an attempt, many years back, to start a peer-review process in the ArXiv, but it was dismissed because they thought the work was not worth, because scientists are very conservative in their professional practice, they might be scared that ArXiv peer-review might be considered second-class. I can agree with that.

The reason that we scientists can't work ONLY with the ArXiv is that we need the "peer-review" stamp for promotion and funding. Seriously, if this reason was not there, I would never submit a paper to any journal whatsoever. And peer-review is done by ourselves... it's in the very name "peer", isn't it? I've peer-reviewed as many papers as I have authored. And we do it FOR FREE.

 

[ZapperZ]

Zz, you insist on the idea that I'm a newbie in the field. I am not, I have more than 20 papers published, and I have friends who are editors of important journals (JSTAT, for example, but the J-series and NJP are very different from what other publishers do). I know what is their task, and I tell you the following.

My annual salary is around $30000 (I work as a postdoc at ICFO, in Barcelona). I produce in average 2-3 papers per year, with 2-3 collaborators who earn more or less the same amount of money. If I assume my situation is typical, this means that AUTHORING a paper costs around $30000. And you're telling me that edition can add $10000 more to the total cost? So, if an editor is paid as much as I am, this means that they edit... 3 papers per year!? Seriously!?

Yes, seriously! Are you really saying that you actually had to PAY $30,000 (I'm assuming this is US currency) to actually get a paper publish? Really? What journal is this?

If this is true, that you've been duped. The highest that I had to pay was a 6-page paper, and that cost me $1,200 US.

And I'm looking at Phys. Rev. publication page cost, and Nature's publication cost, and I don't see how you can even approach THAT high of a cost to you.

Now, if you are arguing that this isn't what you paid, but rather it is the cost being bared by the journal, I would like to see this in writing. Journals, especially for-profit journals, very seldom release such cost breakdown. I would like to see where this $30,000 comes from, beyond just what you decided to type here.

If you have talked to journal editors, and you STILL have such erroneous impression such as you doing the actual typesetting for the journal itself, then there is very little hope that a discussion such as this will produce anything meaningful that will sink in.

BTW, you might want to consider how ArXiv got its original funding to allow it to start up (this is where you should thank the US taxpayers). Do you think such expenses was taken into account when computing the actual cost of processing an ArXiv submission? Do you think many of these journals have the luxury to write off such start-up expenses or to have such funds available and not include it in the costs of processing such papers?

Zz.

 

[D H]

I have to explain things really slowly.

Have you read anything that we have said? ZapperZ, Vanadium 50, twofish-quant, and I have explained things slowly to you, to no avail.

 

[jrlaguna]

Zz, do you even read my comments? I NEVER say that authors pay for publication. It is the scientific community, via the library subscriptions, who pay that money, according to Paul Ginsparg (I hope you know who he is). I repeat for the last time, I feel like I'm talking to a wall. The authoring cost of a paper in theoretical physics, in salaries, is around $30.000 per paper. And do you really think that editing it can add $10.000? So, if an editor makes $50.000 per year, he or she will edit 5 papers IN A YEAR? OMG!

In summary, and in very simple terms: publication COST need not be charged on authors. OK?

And about typesetting, I'm sorry to contradict you again, but the final printed form of my papers differs in less than epsilon from my LaTeX. They just changed a bit the format, and most of the work is done automatically. Have you talked to editors? I have.

About the cost of ArXiv, it was given by Paul Ginsparg himself. I guess he summed up the mantainance cost of the ArXiv, paid by many institutions (US and worldwide) and divided by the number of papers. He got $10 per paper. How is that confusing you?

 

[dcpo]

I don't understand why the idea that it is being claimed that journals charge huge fees to the authors has taken root.

Regarding a peer review process for arXiv I see a few problems. For a start arXiv arguably serves a distinct purpose from the peer-reviewed literature. This point has been made by others here and I won't dwell on it. Another potential problem is that peer-review in itself is not necessarily a strong stamp of approval. I can point to at least one peer-reviewed mathematics journal (with high impact factor) that publishes some obviously garbage papers at the whim of its editor-in-chief, who, legitimate publication record notwithstanding, appears to have some powerful crankish tendencies. In order for peer-review to be meaningful there has to be an understanding of the standards of the publication, something guided by the editors. If arXiv were to be peer-reviewed who would set the standard for review, and to whom would the reviewers be accountable? In addition to this, while I don't regard the production of printed journals, or even the collection of articles into issues (an artifact of the print system), as necessary, I would not wish to discount the role the editorial boards of journals play in the development of their fields. Rather than try remake arXiv I see more of a future in the establishment of new journal type systems, under the guidance of editorial boards and with a review process, but offering a subscription service to an archive of accepted results. Here the typesetting could be done wholly by the authors (at least in mathematics), and post acceptance production delays would be eliminated. It would probably still be necessary to charge a subscription fee, but I'd be very surprised if the operational costs for such a system were not significantly lower than those of most in the current model.

 

[jrlaguna]

@dcpo, thanks, seriously! Although I have discussed these ideas in many places, it's really getting on my nerves how these people are missing the basic point... At least you point at difficulties which prove that you understood the proposal! :)

I really regret having posted it here. I will stick to forums which are more friendly to new ideas.

 

[micromass]

I will stick to forums which are more friendly to new ideas.

You mean forums that just accept your ideas without pointing out where you went wrong?? Don't let us stop you from going there.

 

[jrlaguna]

Such ill-intentioned misunderstanding and patronizing makes me have the strong impression that this site and their "PF mentors" get funding from the publishing industry, either open or covert. Can you prove it wrong?

 

[dcpo]

You mean forums that just accept your ideas without pointing out where you went wrong?? Don't let us stop you from going there.

I don't think that's a fair assessment at all. As an impartial observer I found the criticism directed towards jrlaguna's proposal to be rather hostile and mean-spirited in its desire to interpret meaning in such a way as to maximize disagreement.

 

[micromass]

I don't think that's a fair assessment at all. As an impartial observer I found the criticism directed towards jrlaguna's proposal to be rather hostile and mean-spirited in its desire to interpret meaning in such a way as to maximize disagreement.

Well, I'm an impartial observer as well here. I did not participate in the discussion. I saw jrlaguna basically ignore the good posts of Zz, Vanadium and twofish.
He might have a point somewhere, but he should explain it better.

 

[D H]

Here the typesetting could be done wholly by the authors (at least in mathematics), and post acceptance production delays would be eliminated. It would probably still be necessary to charge a subscription fee, but I'd be very surprised if the operational costs for such a system were not significantly lower than those of most in the current model.

There are plenty of peer reviewed journal articles on the internet for which you can find both the as-published version and the pre-review arxiv version of the articles. Find some, look at both versions with an open eye. What you will see is that scientists, engineers, and mathematicians generally have rather lousy writing skills, document layout skills, and graphics skills. Fixing those problems costs money. You can also see this in a peer-reviewed conference proceedings. Typically conference proceedings bypass the technical editing process -- and you can see it. That technical editing is expensive.

 

[dcpo]

There are plenty of peer reviewed journal articles on the internet for which you can find both the as-published version and the pre-review arxiv version of the articles. Find some, look at both versions with an open eye. What you will see is that scientists, engineers, and mathematicians generally have rather lousy writing skills, document layout skills, and graphics skills. Fixing those problems costs money. You can also see this in a peer-reviewed conference proceedings. Typically conference proceedings bypass the technical editing process -- and you can see it. That technical editing is expensive.

I have no trouble reading and understanding preprint versions of papers in my field. I do not dispute that professional typesetters can do a better job, my question is whether the improvement is worth the money that must be spent on it.

 

[ZapperZ]

I have no trouble reading and understanding preprint versions of papers in my field. I do not dispute that professional typesetters can do a better job, my question is whether the improvement is worth the money that must be spent on it.

OK, before I jump all over this one, will you please clarify one thing?

Do you think that all a journal does is improve the look of a submitted manuscript? From the way you have described it here, you appear to not realize that producing a peer-reviewed journal involves a whole bunch of other things other than just some pretty typesetting!

And please note, in at least one of my earlier posts, I've already described several of the main functions of a journal editor! And someone here thinks that *I* don't read or understand his/her post? I could easily show this as one example that someone didn't read MY post!

Zz.