A peer-review system for the ArXiv?

[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.

 

[dcpo]

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.

I don't understand why you would think that I think that all journals do is typesetting. I've explicitly made a contrary statement in fact. For the sake of clarification though, I do not believe that the only role of a journal is typesetting, but I do believe that professional typesetting and the production of print editions adds significant expense to journal production, which is then passed on in the form of subscription fees. My idea is that by abandoning print editions and professional typesetting academic material could be processed, reviewed and archived in a system retaining the academic virtues of the traditional publishing model but at significantly lower cost, a saving which could be passed on to subscribing institutions (though there would likely remain a subscription fee). Obviously there are many problems inherent in changing the status quo in such a reputation based world, but that is a topic for further discussion.

 

[ZapperZ]

I don't understand why you would think that I think that all journals do is typesetting. I've explicitly made a contrary statement in fact. For the sake of clarification though, I do not believe that the only role of a journal is typesetting, but I do believe that professional typesetting and the production of print editions adds significant expense to journal production, which is then passed on in the form of subscription fees. My idea is that by abandoning print editions and professional typesetting academic material could be processed, reviewed and archived in a system retaining the academic virtues of the traditional publishing model but at significantly lower cost, a saving which could be passed on to subscribing institutions (though there would likely remain a subscription fee). Obviously there are many problems inherent in changing the status quo in such a reputation based world, but that is a topic for further discussion.

I don't think the cost of type setting is a substantial portion of a journal's expense. I also do not think that print editions is a major issue anymore, considering that many institutions have abandoned receiving print editions, with substantial savings.

In the US, a lot of expense comes in the form of human resources. The editors of these journals are themselves professionals in the these various fields. Journals such as Nature, Science, and PRL depends a lot of these editors to weed out all of the submissions BEFORE they get to the referees. In fact, I would say that less than half of the manuscript submitted to Nature and Science even make it to the referees. So the editors do not play an insignificant role, and such time and effort costs a lot of money. Add to that the rebuttal processes (which also incur expenses), etc. and one can already see why such costs escalates if you consider just the peer-reviewing process itself! I see this as THE major cost in the whole process. If you want to do it right and proper, you cannot do this in a cavalier fashion without jeopardizing quality.

And this is why I brought up the example of PRB. One needs to really look at the number of papers being published in just one month, and think about those that (i) didn't make it through the editors (ii) made it through to the referees but didn't get published in the end (but still when through the peer-reviewing process) (iii) made it through in the end. It requires a HUGE amount of effort, a lot of time, and a lot of people to handle! And this is for a journal that, to me, requires minimal amount of typesetting, as opposed to Nature and Science.

And this is before we consider that each of these journals have an editorial office, and chief editor that has a non-trivial function, an editorial board, and the fact that these editors and associate editors, if they are any good, have to attend conferences and be up-to-date on development in these fields (again, require money and time!).

Again, my point in all of this is that typesetting is such a small part of the whole cost. The refereeing process is the major cost in such publication.

Zz.

 

[dcpo]

Whether the production of a print edition is an issue is certainly not determined entirely by whether it is subscribed to, as the cost of production of such an item drives the cost of publication up even if it is not bought.

The situation you seem to be describing is alien to me. In mathematics the editors and editorial board are tenured academics and are very rarely paid for their editorial work, so whatever the cost of production it is not related to the review process in an obvious way. See here for slightly dated but relevant information.

 

[Vanadium 50]

The issue of typesetting came up because jrlaguna made the claim that because the documents are sent in RevTex, that the typesetting was already done. Anyone who has compared the redlines of their journal articles with what they sent knows that this is not true and cannot be true.

The APS makes public how much it costs them to produce journals. Last year it was $28,098,375. We can make the argument that it should cost less, but this is what it actually costs. I should point out that Ginsparg himself, in the very article that's being bandied about, says that its the cost of peer review that drives this. Yes, the reviewer doesn't get paid, but the guy who is badgering the reviewer to get the review in on time often does.

If we want the arXiv to take on this work, it will cost about this much money. That's 41x the arXiv's budget.

Let me ask my questions again:

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

 

[dcpo]

"the reviewer doesn't get paid, but the guy who is badgering the reviewer to get the review in on time often does." this is not the case in maths, I can't speak for physics.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Or the person badgering the person to do the badgering.

 

[twofish-quant]

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.

I don't think that's the big reason. The big reason is that people publish to Arxiv (and SSRN) precisely because it is *NOT* peer-reviewed and you don't have to go through the expense and trouble of publishing results quickly. I'm willing to ignore a dozen papers by crackpots if it means that I get research data and ideas now instead of in six months. I know enough about the field so that I can do my own peer review. I read the paper, and I figure out what I think about it. I don't see what peer review adds to the process.

Also the communities are pretty small. There are maybe 30 people involved worldwide in my area of research, and I know all of them, so there really is no point in starting any sort of general forum for comments.

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 that's the real problem. One thing that ArXiv shows is that sometimes peer-review is counterproductive. The point that people are making is that there are large costs that are *inherently* associated with the peer-review and journal publication process which means that we really need to ask if scientific journals are really the best mechanism for scientific discourse.

In astrophysics, publication is basically a rubber-stamp. The real gatekeeping comes with writing grant proposals.

The other problem is that funds are limited, so if you make it *easier* for people to do science, then you just end up with much more competition for limited funds and people will end up doing something silly to limit funding. One way of thinking forcing people to publish to dead trees is that it's a somewhat silly way of making it more difficult to do science, because society can't handle a situation in which it is easy to do science.

If the peer review system is broken, then it doesn't make sense to force something that works into that broken system.

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.

But science is fun and it's a reputation economy, so people get "stuff" for doing peer review. The type of thing that you need to pay people for is the "janitorial" stuff. People will do peer review for free, but I don't know anyone that will measure margins and do copy editing for free.

That also works with online stuff. Putting together a website is non-trivial. Under some situations I'm willing to do it for free, but past a certain point you are going to have to pay me (and pay me a lot) to write computer programs.

 

[twofish-quant]

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.

It's even worse in economics and management. There the academics are in their own world that very few people outside take seriously any more. I don't know of any non-academic in economics and management that actually reads or cares about what's in the peer reviewed literature.

One difference is that in physics, publishing in peer-reviewed papers is the only way of building reputation, whereas in economics and management, you can get reputation in other ways (i.e. starting a business and making a ton of money), and being an academic is sometimes an anti-signal.

If arXiv were to be peer-reviewed who would set the standard for review, and to whom would the reviewers be accountable?

And what's the point in the end? I do a keyword search. If it's an interesting paper, I read it. If not, I don't. What's the point of having someone else tell me if it's a good paper or not?

If you want "prestige" then trying to graft peer review is the wrong way around. IMHO, you could do better if you have some moderately wealthy benefactor give high profile awards for the best papers published in Arxiv.

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.

Or you can have public funding on the condition that the results are openly available. Someone has to pay, and ultimately the money for most of research comes from tax revenue. I think we may reach the point in which we end up with public funding for public results, which is largely the situation in astrophysics.

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.

I would be. One thing that tends to be the situation is that when you use new technology, the costs increase, and people that attempt to "save money" with new technology are usually quite disappointed. Putting together a well-run website is highly expensive. It's also important to figure out the difference between fixed costs and marginal costs. Software has very low marginal costs, but the fixed capital costs can be huge.

I don't see that the costs themselves are the big problem. The big problems are "who pays" and "who benefits"?

 

[dcpo]

@twofish-quant: I think I agree with you about most of this, though I do believe that moving away from the paper based model would result in savings. Remember that journals already maintain an e-subscription service, so new technology wouldn't need to be brought in. You're right though that costs are not the real problem. In maths at least almost everyone works for free. If you remove the need for professional typesetting then it would save a bit by removing some of the people who have to be paid, but the real problem comes with profit driven academic publishing companies. The data shows that journals put out by universities and societies tend to have much lower subscription fees than those put out by Springer, Elsevier etc. The profit turned by universities and societies is also usually reinvested in the community in some way, which is much less the case with commercial publishers.

 

[Vanadium 50]

The profit turned by universities and societies is also usually reinvested in the community in some way, which is much less the case with commercial publishers.

But that's an argument that for-profit journals shouldn't exist. That's not an argument that the arXiv needs to radically change its purpose.

Elsevier makes a 30% profit. That's certainly large, and it certainly makes me unhappy. But it also means that if we were to ban profit completely, costs would not fall by an order of magnitude. They'd fall by around 30%.

The argument that journals should not be allowed to make a profit on taxpayer-funded research is a slippery slope. Dell makes a profit by selling me a computer to write the paper. LeCroy made a profit selling the electronics to make the experiment possible, and so on.