4 ms·

> I also don't like it but the paper needs be printed and reviewed. This is not free. I have peer reviewed various academic papers for Elsevier without receivi

by knlje 11y ago

> I also don't like it but the paper needs be printed and reviewed. This is not free. I have peer reviewed various academic papers for Elsevier without receiving any monetary compensation. Moreover, quite small amount of academic papers is read in a printed form, at least among my colleagues. Where the money goes to?

teekert 11y ago
You think the paper is free? You think the editors, typesetters etc are free? I'm not saying it should be as expensive as it is, I'm saying if you want to distribute for free, the publishing party (the research group) will have to pay more or the journal will have to take less profits.
- Blahah 11y ago
  Printing is a separate concern to modern publishing - if people want to read paper versions of academic work, they can foot the bill. Academic editors often work free for scientific publishers, and very few journals employ copy editors (though some do). Typesetting for the internet can be automated. Nobody needs to pay more, but the publishers should certainly be making less profit. What really needs to happen is the publishers need to be replaced by more efficient ones. See for example Scholastica, who provide the entire journal infrastructure for $10/article. Or the PeerJ, charge just $99/year to publish with them.
  - teekert 11y ago
    Agree, but the publishers will only take those reduced profits if they feel threatened. So start with motivating scientists to choose open access journals if you want to do it the legal way. I don't understand why scientists first pick a journal that takes their rights to their paper away and then offer it for free via "secret codes". Seems to me they are supporting the current, closed system.
    - inclemnet 11y ago
      > I don't understand why scientists first pick a journal that takes their rights to their paper away and then offer it for free via "secret codes". Seems to me they are supporting the current, closed system. The reason is that a scientist not doing this would (rightly or wrongly) have fewer publications in the 'best' journals as considered by the rest of their field and by impact and citation measurements, would therefore be less well known and well cited, and would struggle more to succeed. This is wrong and bad and so on, but it's probably widely true.
- JupiterMoon 11y ago
  Online only is perfectly fine today. Also typesetting can be taken care of by authors + some scripts. Peer review is free.
dumbmatter 11y ago
Where the money goes to? Ask PLoS, they charge $3k/article for open access publications. How much cheaper do you think Elsevier can be than PLoS?

by knlje 11y ago

teekert 11y ago

You think the paper is free? You think the editors, typesetters etc are free? I'm not saying it should be as expensive as it is, I'm saying if you want to distribute for free, the publishing party (the research group) will have to pay more or the journal will have to take less profits.

Blahah 11y ago
Printing is a separate concern to modern publishing - if people want to read paper versions of academic work, they can foot the bill. Academic editors often work free for scientific publishers, and very few journals employ copy editors (though some do). Typesetting for the internet can be automated. Nobody needs to pay more, but the publishers should certainly be making less profit. What really needs to happen is the publishers need to be replaced by more efficient ones. See for example Scholastica, who provide the entire journal infrastructure for $10/article. Or the PeerJ, charge just $99/year to publish with them.
- teekert 11y ago
  Agree, but the publishers will only take those reduced profits if they feel threatened. So start with motivating scientists to choose open access journals if you want to do it the legal way. I don't understand why scientists first pick a journal that takes their rights to their paper away and then offer it for free via "secret codes". Seems to me they are supporting the current, closed system.
  - inclemnet 11y ago
    > I don't understand why scientists first pick a journal that takes their rights to their paper away and then offer it for free via "secret codes". Seems to me they are supporting the current, closed system. The reason is that a scientist not doing this would (rightly or wrongly) have fewer publications in the 'best' journals as considered by the rest of their field and by impact and citation measurements, would therefore be less well known and well cited, and would struggle more to succeed. This is wrong and bad and so on, but it's probably widely true.
JupiterMoon 11y ago
Online only is perfectly fine today. Also typesetting can be taken care of by authors + some scripts. Peer review is free.

dumbmatter 11y ago

Where the money goes to? Ask PLoS, they charge $3k/article for open access publications. How much cheaper do you think Elsevier can be than PLoS?