you miss all the shots you don't take
you miss all the shots you don't take
You're viewing a single thread.
51 comments
-
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
-
It makes more sense when you consider that reviewing papers is expected but not remunerated, while scientific newspapers charge readers an extortionate fee.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
-
-
-
perhaps you should ask AI to explain some things you don't understand
-
51 comments