> Of course there should be. Scientists can't publish and format their own journal articles for printing.
They already do! Many (most?/all?) journals require authors to format the paper in journal style.
> Having dedicated reviewers to decide what enters the journal is also great.
In the vast majority of cases (non-tier one journals, basically not Science and Nature) this doesn't happen. They just look at the tick boxes the referees select (Accept with minor revisions, accept with major revisions etc).
> You also need someone to coordinate the peer-review so it's as painless for the involved scientists as possible.
You need a website where reviews can be uploaded. These already exist, and are not a huge infrastructure burden.
> The question is whether those things are worth the exorbitant cost that's currently being charged.
It's clear to most scientists that they're not. What you're paying for is the lockin effect these journals have by virtue of having a high impact factor.
> They already do! Many (most?/all?) journals require authors to format the paper in journal style.
Not in many biomedical journals where Word is the standard format for a paper to be submitted in.
> In the vast majority of cases (non-tier one journals, basically not Science and Nature) this doesn't happen. They just look at the tick boxes the referees select (Accept with minor revisions, accept with major revisions etc).
I've appealed and/or argued successfully with editors to change a decision from "what the referees ticked" on a number of occasions.
> It's clear to most scientists that they're not. What you're paying for is the lockin effect these journals have by virtue of having a high impact factor.
It should be noted its not just impact factor that goes into prestige. For example, at it's height, PLoS ONE had an impact factor comparable to several major society-level journals that carried considerably more weight. "I publish all my work in PLoS ONE" versus "I publish all my work in Epidemiology and AJE" would likely result in very different yearly evaluations.
> Not in many biomedical journals where Word is the standard format for a paper to be submitted in.
I don't know about all journals. The ones I've submitted to usually provide a Word or Latex template.
> I've appealed and/or argued successfully with editors to change a decision from "what the referees ticked" on a number of occasions.
In almost all journals editors are not paid staff. They are volunteers. Personally I've never seen a paper will all negative reviews get accepted by an editor, but they have some sway it's true.
They already do! Many (most?/all?) journals require authors to format the paper in journal style.
> Having dedicated reviewers to decide what enters the journal is also great.
In the vast majority of cases (non-tier one journals, basically not Science and Nature) this doesn't happen. They just look at the tick boxes the referees select (Accept with minor revisions, accept with major revisions etc).
> You also need someone to coordinate the peer-review so it's as painless for the involved scientists as possible.
You need a website where reviews can be uploaded. These already exist, and are not a huge infrastructure burden.
> The question is whether those things are worth the exorbitant cost that's currently being charged.
It's clear to most scientists that they're not. What you're paying for is the lockin effect these journals have by virtue of having a high impact factor.