HN Reader

There's this guy I usually have on in the background on youtube who replicates chemistry experiments -- or attempts to. It's pretty rare to see him find a paper that doesn't exaggerate yields or go into enough details, and he has to guess things.

I think what publishers need to do is retain reviewers (possibly on part-time basis); many retired scientists can benefit from those opportunities and it is a way to keep senior scientists engaged in their fields. For most submitted papers, there is no need for the reviewer to be sub-specialized in the paper's field (most reviews done by the sub specialists are actually done by their postdocs and grad students) and the hiring process (and subsequent evaluation) is ought to be more effective and speedier than randomly contacting people to beg for reviews. Until the review process is taken more seriously by publishers and journal editors, the quality of published science continues to deteriorate.

> Some 53% of researchers accepted the invitation to review when offered payment, compared with 48% of those who received a standard, non-paid offer. On average, paid reviews came in one day earlier than unpaid ones.

Does not sound like notable effects to either end. (I was once offered a payment for a peer review, but declined it.)

What are the requirements of a review? And what is the marketplace for someone meeting those requirements?

What expertise is required - someone who researches the same questions? Same general domain? Adjacent domain?

And how long does it take? I imagine that depends on many details.

Finally, what are they reviewing for? Is it a once-over for errors in method? Something like grading a student paper?

Peer review is work. The workers are subject to capitalism. Pay them or capitalism will optimize the quality unfavorably

> USD $250

How much deep research does $250 yield by comparison?

Knowledge market > Examples; Google Answers, Yahoo Answers, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge_market#Examples