547
you miss all the shots you don't take (mander.xyz)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/science_memes@mander.xyz
49 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 57 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Why is AI reviewing papers to begin with is what I don't understand but I also don't understand an awful lot of things

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 37 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    It makes more sense when you consider that reviewing papers is expected but not remunerated, while scientific newspapers charge readers an extortionate fee.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Faculty are paid for doing peer review just like we're paid for publishing. We're not paid directly for each of either, but both publishing (research) and peer review (service to the field) are stipulated within our contracts. Arxiv is also free to upload to and isn't a journal with publication fees.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child)

    But no-one is hiring professors because they are good at peer reviewing. Spending time on research is simply a 'better' use of your time.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago

    My merit review this year specifically noted my high volume of peer review for why I exceeded expectations in the 20% service part of my contract. Again I say, faculty are remunerated for peer review. It's better to do peer review for the service part of my contract than it is to sit on faculty senate. Doing peer review helps my research. It's a win-win, unless I don't want to get my full merit raise because i ignored service.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent