Science has got the the only "industry" that gives away high-level editing services for free (and with increasing editorial responsibilities placed on the author), pays journals for publication, pays the journal again for access, lets others profit monetarily, and thanks them for it. If science publication is a for-profit enterprise, then we should be paid for our reviewing services. But if you believe science publication is a service for the greater good, then profits don't fit. Who then should cover the costs of publication? Either authors, in which case access should be free, or readers, in which case submission should be free. In either case, it should be a non-profit enterprise. If the publication companies currently profiting from our services and products don't like that, then maybe we should start demanding compensation for our time and effort and share in the profits made from our time and effort.
Sincerely, David F. Raikow, Ph. D Certified Ecologist, Ecological Society of America _________________________________________ I am seeking new employment in environmental science, to serve as a project/program manager, researcher, writer, instructor and consultant. My areas of expertise include basic and applied freshwater ecology and toxicology in multiple ecosystems using field studies, experimentation, and models, in federal and academic settings. I have been conducting original research for the Environmental Protection Agency for the last 4 years, complementing seven overall years of post-graduate professional experience. Feel free to view my full credentials at rivercontinua.wordpress.com. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) National Exposure Research Laboratory (NERL) 26 W. Martin Luther King Dr. Cincinnati, OH, 45268 513-569-7383 (Office) 513-569-7609 (Fax) 513-646-1759 (Cell) [email protected] _________________________________________
