91–100 of 143 posts
[1] https://www.engadget.com/2016/09/06/european-commission-free...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> someone has to bear the cost of the review process Maybe you are aware of it, but this argument is bogus in any case, because reviewing is unpaid labor. You can make an argument that someone has to organize the review process, but publishers usually don't pay for that process (except paying token amounts to an editor for some journals).
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…
Publishers just coast on their current name, and are in a winner takes all market where the best authors will try to publish at the most famous journals. They are purely rent seekers, and won't go out without some external intervention.
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…
Basically, our government currently forces us to commit copyright infringement or to end our careers and funding by not publishing in established journals.
In the good old spirit of our country, nobody does anything and the open access servers remain empty until the higher authorities get a basic grasp of the publishing reality. People are used to incompetent bosses around here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, you could always look at citations. And I don't think they are as easy to game as links between general websites, because in research at least the authors publish using their own names (and you don't want to get a bad rep for gaming the system).
With the disclaimer that this is an anecdote and not data: You would be surprised at how easily a winners win situation happens in research. The citation based search would reinforce it. And while the gaming may not be search engine focused, I think getting the best papers via algorithmic methods can omit the crown jewels through less insidious (but quite common) issues such as citation graphs which orient in the dir…
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…
Publisher-hosted open access is a scam. Here in the UK we already have an open-access requirement for RCUK and EPSRC grants, but it can be met by uploading a preprint to an institution- or subject-specific repository (such as arXiv) and including a link to it in your report back to the grant sponsor. Last time I published in a journal, I got a "special offer" of $1200 instead of $2000 to make it open access. I polite…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Publisher-hosted open access is a scam. Here in the UK we already have an open-access requirement for RCUK and EPSRC grants, but it can be met by uploading a preprint to an institution- or subject-specific repository (such as arXiv) and including a link to it in your report back to the grant sponsor. Last time I published in a journal, I got a "special offer" of $1200 instead of $2000 to make it open access. I polite…
This makes me feel stupid, but people get paid when they publish in journals?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Publisher-hosted open access is a scam. Here in the UK we already have an open-access requirement for RCUK and EPSRC grants, but it can be met by uploading a preprint to an institution- or subject-specific repository (such as arXiv) and including a link to it in your report back to the grant sponsor. Last time I published in a journal, I got a "special offer" of $1200 instead of $2000 to make it open access. I polite…
This makes me feel stupid, but people get paid when they publish in journals?
However you shouldn't feel stupid. The wording is, as English often is, confusing to those without context.