3 ms·

Science publishing needs to be coordinated by the major funding agencies. Those who give the money are the rightful ones to say how the output gets disseminated

Science publishing needs to be coordinated by the major funding agencies. Those who give the money are the rightful ones to say how the output gets disseminated. I could not disagree more. Even if funding agencies were unbiased, they should be independent of where and how the results of research are disseminated. Funding agencies don't own that money, they only re-distribute tax-payer money. So it's tax-payers who have the final say (through elected officials). If they want to make their own journals and stipulate that I publish there to keep my funding I'm totally cool with it. This might create dangerous isolation and conflict of interests. The editors must be independent of the funding agencies to ensure quality of the research The funding agency and general population gets its research, I get my tenure, and the university gets its money and prestige. It's a win-win all around. The general population would get the research that was steered by a small group of people from funding agencies (DARPA, NSF), so possibly biased by the people on the agencies' committees and the government. I get my tenure if the tenure committee is aligned with the funding agency's guidelines; the university lowers prestige as the results appear lower-quality in an international settings. It's a lose-lose-lose, humankind's knowledge losing the most. I don't even want to think about private funding agencies commissioning an article on their own journals to further their own economical interests, especially if said journals become the state of the art because other, better journals who would deserve to get the research published on them end up without submissions. Sorry, but I don't see any scenario worse than this.

untilHellbanned 10y ago
> So it's tax-payers who have the final say (through elected officials). And currently, that taxpayer money is going to for-profit companies. What I propose is better. > The editors must be independent of the funding agencies to ensure quality of the research While often well-meaning, editors have almost no role in quality control. That is in hands of academics who review the work. So the review process is already independent of the funding agencies. > The general population would get the research that was steered by a small group of people from funding agencies Again, publishing is already steered by a small group of people who are independent of the funding agencies, the reviewers. > I don't even want to think about private funding agencies commissioning an article to further their own economical interests What? The vast majority of funding agencies are non-profits who genuinely want to help the world. They are motivated to produce research towards AIDS, alternative energy, etc. They are economically motivated? Relative to the for-profits who currently control the academic publishing world?
- merraksh 10y ago
  And currently, that taxpayer money is going to for-profit companies. What I propose is better. No, research money is going to researchers, publishers get (other) money for different reasons. The cost of maintaining journals would have to be paid as well, so journal subscription money would only go to different for-profit organizations. What you propose does not solve the problem of paywalls, it just moves them. While often well-meaning, editors have almost no role in quality control. Editors choose the reviewers, and actually do a pre-filtering of the submitted papers. The final decision (reject/revise/accept) on a paper is theirs, and sometimes can be different from the sum of the referee reports. So they do have a strong role in quality control, both in theory and in practice. That is in hands of academics who review the work. So the review process is already independent of the funding agencies. As it should be. Again, publishing is already steered by a small group of people who are independent of the funding agencies, the reviewers. Most academicians are reviewers, so they are no small group. And they do not steer publication, they just decide whether a paper should be rejected/revised/accepted. There's quite a difference. What? The vast majority of funding agencies are non-profits who genuinely want to help the world. You assume funding agencies are genuinely trying to help the world, but everybody else (editors/academicians/reviewers) are not. I think there's good and bad in both sides They are motivated to produce research towards AIDS, alternative energy, etc. I agree, but they depend on their employer, i.e., whoever is in power. They are economically motivated? Relative to the for-profits who currently control the academic publishing world? Not as greedy, that's out of question, but giving them all controls on who publishes would be dangerous. I do not defend publishers, I do strongly believe the current system is bad. I just think your solution is wrong, and that there are ways to make research really public without giving it in the hands of any of the players in the arena, especially those that might influence what is published and where. Paywalls are bad, but what you're proposing would lead to self-censorship.
  - IanCal 10y ago
    > No, research money is going to researchers, publishers get (other) money for different reasons For open access papers, the money generally does come from the grant .
  - 10y ago

untilHellbanned 10y ago

> So it's tax-payers who have the final say (through elected officials). And currently, that taxpayer money is going to for-profit companies. What I propose is better. > The editors must be independent of the funding agencies to ensure quality of the research While often well-meaning, editors have almost no role in quality control. That is in hands of academics who review the work. So the review process is already independent of the funding agencies. > The general population would get the research that was steered by a small group of people from funding agencies Again, publishing is already steered by a small group of people who are independent of the funding agencies, the reviewers. > I don't even want to think about private funding agencies commissioning an article to further their own economical interests What? The vast majority of funding agencies are non-profits who genuinely want to help the world. They are motivated to produce research towards AIDS, alternative energy, etc. They are economically motivated? Relative to the for-profits who currently control the academic publishing world?

merraksh 10y ago
And currently, that taxpayer money is going to for-profit companies. What I propose is better. No, research money is going to researchers, publishers get (other) money for different reasons. The cost of maintaining journals would have to be paid as well, so journal subscription money would only go to different for-profit organizations. What you propose does not solve the problem of paywalls, it just moves them. While often well-meaning, editors have almost no role in quality control. Editors choose the reviewers, and actually do a pre-filtering of the submitted papers. The final decision (reject/revise/accept) on a paper is theirs, and sometimes can be different from the sum of the referee reports. So they do have a strong role in quality control, both in theory and in practice. That is in hands of academics who review the work. So the review process is already independent of the funding agencies. As it should be. Again, publishing is already steered by a small group of people who are independent of the funding agencies, the reviewers. Most academicians are reviewers, so they are no small group. And they do not steer publication, they just decide whether a paper should be rejected/revised/accepted. There's quite a difference. What? The vast majority of funding agencies are non-profits who genuinely want to help the world. You assume funding agencies are genuinely trying to help the world, but everybody else (editors/academicians/reviewers) are not. I think there's good and bad in both sides They are motivated to produce research towards AIDS, alternative energy, etc. I agree, but they depend on their employer, i.e., whoever is in power. They are economically motivated? Relative to the for-profits who currently control the academic publishing world? Not as greedy, that's out of question, but giving them all controls on who publishes would be dangerous. I do not defend publishers, I do strongly believe the current system is bad. I just think your solution is wrong, and that there are ways to make research really public without giving it in the hands of any of the players in the arena, especially those that might influence what is published and where. Paywalls are bad, but what you're proposing would lead to self-censorship.
- IanCal 10y ago
  > No, research money is going to researchers, publishers get (other) money for different reasons For open access papers, the money generally does come from the grant .
- 10y ago