91–100 of 213 posts
Just increase the number of co-authors and split the cost ;-)
A stealth measure to encourage cooperation among researchers!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You seem to have misunderstood. The authors don't get paid anything for publishing. Nature typically puts papers behind a paywall. Nature will make a paper available for free if the authors pay Nature ~11k.
It's like ransomware for research
This seems like a fair price. If there are 30 articles in an issue of Nature that’s 360,000 per issue assuming everyone eventually publishes open access and subscriptions go to zero. That seems like a very reasonable cost for editing etc.
This is sarcasm, right?
I’ll never forget getting my first paper accepted to a conference, only to learn that presenting will cost a mere $600. Work paid for it but still - what an absolute racket academia is.
Conferences cost money. You have to rent an appropriate venue, people tend to expect refreshments, etc. Why would it be free just because you are presenting there? So are most of the attendees.
And there was no conference - this was in 2020, so the entire thing was virtual. No refreshments either. Also, every staff member I met was a “volunteer”.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is sarcasm, right?
Why? I hope this isn't a critique of the form "Why does Dropbox have 3,000 employees, I could build it in a weekend." There are a lot of costs to producing an issue of Nature.
https://blog.joss.theoj.org/2019/06/cost-models-for-running-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Note: Are we sure this is a mandatory charge or just the charge if the authors must publish an immediate open access article. I just published in Nature Metabolism and there was no charge at all. The quality of the review and editing was EXTRAORDINARY! I wanted to thank all of the reviewers for doing a superb job. Had I required immediate open access then it would have cost! But with both full versions in bioRxiv and…
Were the reviewers paid?
I attended an ACM webinar some years ago on the topic of open access, and while the OA fees weren’t as high as this one, I asked how they could defend these fees… the answers weren’t entirely satisfactory to me — in general they claimed obviously admin costs, but also that such funds were used to support other well-meaning things ACM deals with such as scholarships/workshops etc for young and female researchers among other things… Personally, while these are good things for ACM to support, I dislike the somewhat arbitrary connection to OA publishing… PS: I’m not sure if this is still their policy.
Let’s stop reviewing for publishers that profit from research! Join the strike! https://josephpcohen.com/w/reviewerstrike/
Lot of people in the comments here don't understand the Open Access funding model. Please read: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access
Let’s stop reviewing for publishers that profit from research! Join the strike! https://josephpcohen.com/w/reviewerstrike/
Indeed, for-profit publishing only works because researchers are willing to do free reviewing work for such publishers.
Let’s stop reviewing for publishers that profit from research! Join the strike! https://josephpcohen.com/w/reviewerstrike/