The Science "Sting" and Pre-Green Fee-Based Fool's Gold vs. Post-Green No-Fault Fair-Gold

[Paul Colin de Gloucester]

On October 4th, 2013, Stevan Harnad sent:
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|"Comment on: Bohannon, John (2013) Who's Afraid of Peer Review? Science 342 |
|(6154) 60-65                                                                |
|                                                                            |
|                                                                            |
|[. . .]                                                                     |
|                                                                            |
|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."                                                                 |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|

The cost of refereeing would be more than nothing, and many journals
do not pay referees.

|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|"[. . .]                                                                    |
|                                                                            |
|For some peer-review stings of non-OA journals, see below:                  |
|                                                                            |
|                                                                            |
|Peters, D. P., & Ceci, S. J. (1982). Peer-review practices of psychological |
|journals: The fate of published articles, submitted again. Behavioral and   |
|Brain Sciences, 5(2), 187-195.                                              |
|                                                                            |
|                                                                            |
|Harnad, S. R. (Ed.). (1982). Peer commentary on peer review: A case study in|
|scientific quality control (Vol. 5, No. 2). Cambridge University Press      |
|                                                                            |
|                                                                            |
|Harnad, S. (1998/2000/2004) The invisible hand of peer review. Nature       |
|[online] (5 Nov. 1998), Exploit Interactive 5 (2000): and in Shatz, B.      |
|(2004) (ed.) Peer Review: A Critical Inquiry. Rowland & Littlefield. Pp.    |
|235-242."                                                                   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------|

More stings of refereeing of non-open-access journals:

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,
HTTP://DialNet.UniRioja.Es/descarga/articulo/1394347.pdf

de Gloucester, P. C. (2013). Referees Often Miss Obvious Errors in
Computer and Electronic Publications. Accountability in Research:
Policies and Quality Assurance, 20(3), 143-166.

Also see:

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.

Newton, D. P. (2010). Quality and Peer Review of Research: An
Adjudicating Role for Editors. Accountability in Research: Policies
and Quality Assurance, 17(3), 130-145, this is available as open
access:
WWW.TandFonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/08989621003791945#tabModule

Regards,
Paul Colin de Gloucester