One problem with this system is that it leads some to ask why the public should have to pay to access research papers that came about as the result of public funding.

Not only that. It also impedes research and, if you're not part of a large institution that will pay those fees, downright prevents it.

Nothing more frustrating than hunting for that bit of information and finding that you have to pay for it...and after you have decided to pay for it that it actually isn't in the paper you just bought.

They contend that the process they have set up adds value to paper publishing and that moving to an environment where researchers pay for publication, rather than charging readers an access fee would lead to diminishing product quality.

I would think that only those papers deemed worthy of being published would then go through that procedure - weeding out those 'publish or perish' publications with little content.

There an editor reads it to determine if the research has scientific value and to check to see if it was carried out in proper fashion.

The editor checks the form - not the content. Scientific value (and whether it was carried out in 'proper fashion') is evaluated by the peer reviewers.

Once the editor accepts a paper, it is sent to a group of unpaid academic professionals in the field who read it and sometimes try to recreate the results.

Read, yes. Recreate the results? That is mostly not possible. You have very little time for the review. Certainly not enough to duplicate another's experimental setup. (Remember that peer review is an unpaid courtesy service. And researchers DO have work of their own)

hmmm so if the academics are unpaid, how much can it cost the journal...

Editing and storage - as well as providing the servers. But it's szill a pretty good cash cow for the publishers (Elsevier, Springer, ... )

"it is sent to a group of unpaid academic professionals in the field who read it and sometimes try to recreate the results. . . "

Hah! There is absolutely no way that peer reviewers are going to "try to recreate the results." That's utter nonsense. We read the MS and we comment on what is there. That's all. There is no way peer reviewers can ordinarily detect fraud or sloppy work.

"Sometimes try to recreate the results . . ." Utter rubbish.

There is no way peer reviewers can ordinarily detect fraud or sloppy work.

Well you can detect sloppy work sometimes (otherwise there would be no point to per review).

E.g.
- if the statistical measures used are wrong/inapplicable (which happens a lot in medical research)
- if obvious testcases that would mitigate the results haven't been taken into account (i.e. if the conclusions aren't warranted)
- if a theoretical work takes mathematical shortcuts that will not apply in real life applications
- ...

Fraud (massaging of data, creation of data out of thin air, etc.) is hard to detect.
But in my experience you have a good idea whom the paper is from (even though it is anonymized) - as people usually reference their own papers of prior work. And since peers are in the same field you usually know who is working on what, anyhow. So that gives you a clue as to whether the advances are plausible.

If nothing else, the papers should be available for free after some time period, perhaps six months or a year.

Recreate the results? That is mostly not possible. You have very little time for the review. Certainly not enough to duplicate another's experimental setup.

Many journals have data policies that suggest data used in calculations be placed in line.

It is quite common for "climate scientists" to refuse to put their data online in fear that Steve McIntyre will demolish the paper in less than an hour.

check out this research group ....out of the University of Washington

rosetta@home

There is one perk, though, to peer review - I have to admit: You get access to the latest in research before anyone else does (other than the group that did the actual research). Sometimes up to 6 months before anyone else sees it.
And since you exclusively peer review stuff that is very close to your own specialty its an incredibly exciting way of keeping REALLY abreast of the field.

If nothing else, the papers should be available for free after some time period, perhaps six months or a year.

In your dreams. Publishers don't care about science. They want to make as much money as possible. Making stuff publicily available does not further that aim.

So, unpaid professionals do unpaid things. How is it that publishers add value again? Maintaining servers? The cost of hosting a GB is a few cents nowadays, and papers over 2MB (10MB tops) are rare.

The editors of top journals can simply resign en masse and create open-access versions of the paid journals, with exactly the same process and rigor. Case in point: http://graphics.c...du/jcgt/

There is one perk, though, to peer review - I have to admit: You get access to the latest in research before anyone else does (other than the group that did the actual research). Sometimes up to 6 months before anyone else sees it.
And since you exclusively peer review stuff that is very close to your own specialty its an incredibly exciting way of keeping REALLY abreast of the field.

Even better. In climate "science" your buddies control the journal and keep out anyone who disagrees with you.

Very evil and definitely anti-science.

I checked recently if I could read the original Hardy-Littlewood paper on prime number densities. I figured since the work is some 90 years old and both authors have been dead for at least 30 years it might be free. Nope! 30 bucks a gander.

I checked recently if I could read the original Hardy-Littlewood paper on prime number densities. I figured since the work is some 90 years old and both authors have been dead for at least 30 years it might be free. Nope! 30 bucks a gander.

We really need to open these things up to the public. Not feeding curious minds is a crime, and winds up costing all of us in the long run. I don't really know what the answer is though. Publishers and others need to be compensated, or there will be very few new publications. It just seems the current "oh you are intersted in this? Pay $xx" model does not best meet the needs of any group.

It is very imprortant to put science in demand of publicity, but do the open access journals insure the quality?
I am afraid that many of them will just disseminate. Errors will be published and may cause more errors. Time will tell.

Recreate the results? That is mostly not possible. You have very little time for the review. Certainly not enough to duplicate another's experimental setup.

Many journals have data policies that suggest data used in calculations be placed in line.

It is quite common for "climate scientists" to refuse to put their data online in fear that Steve McIntyre will demolish the paper in less than an hour.

The Gergis paper is a great example.

http://climateaud...thdrawn/