>But, most technical people are crumming editors/writers.
><<
>
>Point made. <bg>

You're welcome. :)

>Absolutely! It makes total sense. Generalists aren't typically the sort of "guru" one seeks when looking for the hottest new research and/or techniques.

Agreed. Just they were always the first ones laid off from the company I worked for. :-(

>For example, tech editors generally make less money then the authors or researchers (who would make up the peer review poo).
><<
>
>But be under no illusions what's standard in this industry wrt how much reviewers are paid. Most journals and book publishers pay less for "technical expertise" than you'd pay someone to wash your dishes.

< shrug>I met tech editors at an engineering firm. There they were definitely paid less than the health physicists.

I'm not talking per review, necessarily, but salary for job done...yeah they generally makes less, in my experience.