131–140 of 143 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This doesn't make any sense, why would they make you pay less to make it open access? You mean it was 1200$ more?
They where only going to charge 1200$ to make it open access instead of charging 2,000$.
– "normal" publishing (behind a paywall) is free for authors,
– the open access option was set arbitrarily to $2000 by the publisher, and they decided to offer a discount at $1200 instead.
Why on earth do people think this is to the detriment of publishers? This will effectively just lock in their profits by forcing all eu grants to include the cost of payments to publishers to make research papers open access. It just means the taxpayer is now paying for open access instead of individuals having to pay up themselves. Note I'm not saying this is a bad thing, and it is possibly worth publicly subsidisin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This doesn't make any sense, why would they make you pay less to make it open access? You mean it was 1200$ more?
They where only going to charge 1200$ to make it open access instead of charging 2,000$.
That's incredibly stupid. The publishing of scientific papers has a cost, in terms of editorial service, proofreading, typesetting. This cost will be paid by scientists, rather than by the readers. In other words, the papers will be free to read, but won't be free to publish. I know as a fact that smaller research groups struggle to pay current publishing fees, and as a matter of fact the EU decision will increase th…
Sorry, perhaps this differs from field to field but at least in mine what you say is patently false. Journals have no linguistic editing, no proofreading, and the typesetting is outsourced to India - at least Springer does so, as I know from personal interaction with the typesetters. Articles must be delivered more or less camera-ready according to the journal style. Editorial boards and all editors, as well as as re…
The most prestigious journals have a publication fee. I know for sure that Nature Communications has a pretty hefty fee, more than 5000$, google it. And, trust me, publishing there has a pretty positive impact on your CV.
The same concept applies to all open-access journals, including the most prestigious ones.
You may want to revise your definition of "grey literature".
That's incredibly stupid. The publishing of scientific papers has a cost, in terms of editorial service, proofreading, typesetting. This cost will be paid by scientists, rather than by the readers. In other words, the papers will be free to read, but won't be free to publish. I know as a fact that smaller research groups struggle to pay current publishing fees, and as a matter of fact the EU decision will increase th…
Sorry, perhaps this differs from field to field but at least in mine what you say is patently false. Journals have no linguistic editing, no proofreading, and the typesetting is outsourced to India - at least Springer does so, as I know from personal interaction with the typesetters. Articles must be delivered more or less camera-ready according to the journal style. Editorial boards and all editors, as well as as re…
Why on earth do people think this is to the detriment of publishers? This will effectively just lock in their profits by forcing all eu grants to include the cost of payments to publishers to make research papers open access. It just means the taxpayer is now paying for open access instead of individuals having to pay up themselves. Note I'm not saying this is a bad thing, and it is possibly worth publicly subsidisin…
Explained in a very simple way:
- Researchers do the heavy work, carrying out the research and writing up the articles: they don't get a cent from publishers (sometimes they even have to pay to publish).
- Reviewers, since of the most knowledgeable researchers in the area, take their time and knowledge to check what the researchers did: they also don't get a cent from publishers.
- Publishers, get all the work already done and charge money - stupid amounts of money like 30eur per article - to let other researchers see the works.
Researchers have nothing to lose by cutting the publisher. We are not wasting any money - on the contrary - for demanding free access.
Seriously, people should stop commenting themes they simply don't have a clue about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They where only going to charge 1200$ to make it open access instead of charging 2,000$.
I still don't understand. Is pablo's correct? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12439402
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The cost of the review process in this particular two sided marketplace (which publishing is - how do you decide which journal to send your paper to?) is not just the unpaid labor of the reviewers, but rather the establishment of the credentials and authority which the journals build up over time, which basically drove down the cost of reviewing to be much smaller than if it were simply a free for all. To see this in…
> The cost of the review process in this particular two sided marketplace (which publishing is - how do you decide which journal to send your paper to?) is not just the unpaid labor of the reviewers, but rather the establishment of the credentials and authority which the journals build up over time, which basically drove down the cost of reviewing to be much smaller than if it were simply a free for all. This is a va…
Even today, every single piece of publication already has multiple choices: a) be uploaded as an unreviewed PDF on the authors' websites - this grants the paper absolutely no credibility obviously, except it may have been written by a respected authority - and definitely you get no benefit as a researcher b) be sent for review, become subjected to copyright, but on most occasions where an unformatted (i.e. preprint) can be uploaded on the website with the express understanding that no one would ever cite that version because it is possible for content to change from that version to the final print version and c) be sent for 'stamping' as the authorized final version, at which point the trouble usually starts.
As you progress along each step, you are basically getting additional benefits - they are somewhat intangible, but for researchers these benefits do translate directly into the currency that they care about - acknowledgment of their work as a part of the citation graph (which then translates into career benefits). So no, the commercial publisher does not "reap all the benefit of this authority and brand value". The commercial publisher does reap all the tangible monetary benefits of course.
Very few authors would willingly submit themselves to the painful process of paper review if they felt someone else was getting ALL the benefits.
Your question could be phrased as whether the publishers get an unfair share of the benefits - yes they do. And do they use some strong arm tactics to preserve their ability to get gobs of money for effectively very little work - yes they do.
And "couldn't just the same thing happen with non-commercial free open access journals?" I think it will, I just feel the road will be quite bumpy until we get there.
I will assume for a bit that the vast majority of participants in the review system are academics. So, one of the main reasons the publishing process moves at glacial speeds is because many reviewers are time constrained academics. Nothing in the open access process will change that fact, but many people will be affected by the shift to open access - suddenly you don't even have an organization that can be held nominally accountable for speeding it up. Academics very rarely like being told what to do, and at the slightest sign of dissent against their handling of the review process, are more likely to stop contributing their efforts towards organizing because the rewards are not very tangible.
The OSS ecosystem faces similar issues and still gets a lot of work done at impressive speed - but remember that usually the top contributors in OSS have immediate positive feedback in terms of the adoption of the software (at least) but often much more tangible benefits such as acknowledgement of their efforts in public and VISIBLE forums, sometimes even employment. Very little of this is true for participants in the review process.
As I said, I expect the road to be bumpy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They where only going to charge 1200$ to make it open access instead of charging 2,000$.
To be sure everyone understand you correctly: – "normal" publishing (behind a paywall) is free for authors, – the open access option was set arbitrarily to $2000 by the publisher, and they decided to offer a discount at $1200 instead.
(For conferences with proceeedings, even normal publishing is not free - part of the conference fee is to pay the publisher.)