4 ms·
Oh, and I forgot to mention an important feature, which I often take for granted as obvious but is worth spelling out. much of the work that goes into processin
by dougmccune 9y ago
Oh, and I forgot to mention an important feature, which I often take for granted as obvious but is worth spelling out. much of the work that goes into processing a manuscript goes into processing all the manuscripts that come in, not only the ones that get published. So when you have a journal that is intending to serve as a filter for importance and is as selective as possible (ie Nature, Cell, etc), you end up rejecting 90+% of articles. All those rejected articles take work to process and come to a rejection decision. So the name of the game then is trying to cover the cost of all the things you reject by monetizing all the things you accept. That's why megajournals that intentionally do not filter by importance (and thus can accept a higher proportion of submissions) are able to charge less (it's obviously not pure cost economics, top tier journals charge for their brand name as well of course).
- Iv 9y agoSo, how about giving the breakdown of the price that the parent comment asked? On a $1000 article, how much gets to the people doing this filtering? How much in the people organizing the peer review? How much ends up in the pockets of the rentiers? I associate to jempekka's feeling: > Before such breakdown is given, I keep on thinking you are leeching the work of scientists and taxpayers and making the world a worse place. I would add that by not answering, you lose any right to complain about an "echo chamber" wrongly assuming that paywalls are unnecessary evils.