• Mothra@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    65
    ·
    5 days ago

    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

    • ViatorOmnium@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      43
      ·
      5 days ago

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

      • canihasaccount@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        5 days ago

        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.

        • fristislurper@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          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.

          • canihasaccount@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 day 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.