5 ms·
Forgive my absolute ignorance on the topic - I genuinely don't understand this environment even though I'm interested, so please don't take this as a stupid or
by jmcdiesel 10y ago
Forgive my absolute ignorance on the topic - I genuinely don't understand this environment even though I'm interested, so please don't take this as a stupid or inflammatory questions...
Why are these publishers needed? What service do they provide these days? It seems their role is similar to publishers in other media (TV, movie, music, etc) that can and have been replaced due to the distribution ease of the internet. Aside from a distribution platform, what do these publishers provide?
- udp 10y agoThe journals have an "impact factor", an arbitrary metric that determines how noteworthy they are. My impression is that very few journals are actually read directly - most papers are found via Google Scholar and the journal they're in doesn't matter. However, in academia, the "prestige" of the journals you have published to is hugely important. Good journals, in theory, are more selective about what they publish, so the assumption is that if you have publications in a good one you must have done more groundbreaking research. To an academic, this is the kind of thing that affects whether you get grants, whether you get paid more, whether you can get a job elsewhere. Some journals are pretty much talked about in hushed whispers, like "that PhD student got an ___ paper in their first year, they must be some kind of genius". In reality, research tends to be more about who you know, what kind of work you're doing, and whether you're in the right place at the right time.
- ianderf 10y ago> Good journals, in theory, are more selective about what they publish, so the assumption is that if you have publications in a good one you must have done more groundbreaking research. I wonder why nobody created a single peer-reviewed platform for all scientists to use? Elsevier is just piggybacking on other people's work and funds.
- Vinnl 10y agoBecause there are more than a single one :) Obligatory: https://xkcd.com/927/ https://xkcd.com/927/
- ianderf 10y agoEven several different peer review systems would be much better than Elsevier.
- PeterisP 10y agoThere are many possible platforms, however, there's a significant network effect since it's very harmful to your self-interest to switch to such a platform before everyone else does and (even more importantly) all the funding agencies acknowledge that this is the thing to look at.
- tomaskafka 10y agoSo, the solution to a market taxed by a hegemon is to create even bigger hegemon? What happens when the investors and shareholders of 'even bigger hegemon' start wanting their profits? Elsevier II.
- Vinnl 10y ago> Good journals, in theory, are more selective about what they publish It should be noted that this selectivity is not just on quality, but also e.g. on how "groundbreaking" the results are. This results in papers in top journals actually being retracted more often than in others, since they're more likely to be false.
- Fomite 10y agoPublishers provide three major things: 1. They coordinate the submission of papers, and their dispatch for peer review. 2. They handle layout, typesetting, copyediting, etc. 3. For journals with print editions (of which there are many), they handle distribution. All of those things could be replaced by the internet, but they take time, and they cost either time or money. And I much prefer reading journals with professional typesetting over those that rely on LaTeX. There's also just the weight of history - many "good" journals aren't open access, and an academic's career trajectory is largely determined by publishing in those good journals. Going exclusively open access (in many fields) is either: 1. Expensive (paying for open access publication in a commercial journal) 2. An affectation by senior people who already have established careers 3. A huge risk by junior researchers making a principled stand at the cost of potential damage to themselves.
- JorgeGT 10y agoIf anyone is wondering "how much do points 1 and 2 cost?!" the financial overview of notorious not-for-profit publisher PLOS is a good starting point: https://www.plos.org/financial-overview https://www.plos.org/financial-overview Article Processing Fees for their journals range from $1500 to $3000 per article: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/publication-fees http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/publication-fees
- denzil_correa 10y ago> Article Processing Fees for their journals range from $1500 to $3000 per article: Does it really though? I can say it takes 10,000$ but does it really take that much money?
- leephillips 10y agoIn a sense, the purpose of academic journals is to not have the distribution ease of the internet. The barriers to publication are the main point.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- a3_nm 10y agoI do not understand the point. The barriers to publication (i.e., how selective an academic journal is) have nothing to do with the barriers to access (i.e., subscriptions being required to access the content). And indeed, there are selective open-access journals, whose content is free to access once it's been accepted for publication; and there are non-selective, crappy journals which are not open-access.
- leephillips 10y agoGood points. I did conflate the two things in my reply.