Hacker News
points by elendilm 4 days ago | 0 comments
Peer review and scrutiny out in the public is more valuable than only done by a couple of paid guys from a journal.

It's fairly basic. For a work published on a public platform, the same guys paid by the journal can also review it if they so choose to in addition to those people in the public who were not paid by anyone.

[–] mkremins 3 days ago
It’s always funny to read general-public takes on academic peer review, because they almost always betray a complete misunderstanding of how peer review works. Academic reviewers for the vast majority of journals notoriously do not get paid; in fact, paying peer reviewers is one of the most frequently suggested approaches to peer review reform.
[–] elendilm 3 days ago
Most still get benefits. I concede that many don't get "direct" remuneration. Some journals do pay. But many do get vouchers, discounts, free access, early access, etc. which amounts to a form of payment and thus compensated in kind. This effectively is "paid" as far as I am concerned.

The logic stands. A reviewer, even those who get zero compensation, can always review publicly published papers just like others.