'Positive review only': Researchers hide AI prompts in papers

Journals charge high prices for access to their content, and then charge the people who create that content high prices with claims they're spending a lot of time and effort in the review process.

I find it pretty hard to fault these submissions in any way - journal publishers have been lining their own pockets at everyone's expense and these claims show pretty clearly that they aren't worth their cut.

> journal publishers have been lining their own pockets at everyone's expense

May I ask two things? First, how much do you think a journal charges for publishing? Second, what work do you believe the publisher actually does?

Consider this: when you publish with a journal, they commit to hosting the article indefinitely—maintaining web servers, DOIs, references, back-references, and searchability.

Next, they employ editors—who are paid—tasked with reading the submission, identifying potential reviewers (many don’t respond, and most who do decline), and coordinating the review process. Reviewing a journal paper can easily take three full weeks. When was the last time you had three free weeks just lying around?

Those who accept often miss deadlines, so editors must send reminders or find replacements. By this point, 3–6 months may have passed.

Once reviews arrive, they’re usually "revise and resubmit," which means more rounds of correspondence and waiting.

After acceptance, a copy editor will spend at least two hours on grammar and style corrections.

So: how many hours do you estimate the editor, copy editor, and publishing staff spend per paper?