5 ms·

Don't forget the peer review and vetting process. As for the price I don't think it's really that expensive. I've never heard of a research University unable t

Don't forget the peer review and vetting process. As for the price I don't think it's really that expensive. I've never heard of a research University unable to afford it. And if not for the fees we'd have no journals. Maybe when we are post scarcity then it'd be free. But until then people's time is not unlimited and is worth something.

Xylakant 9y ago
> Don't forget the peer review and vetting process. The peer review often happens by unpaid peers, even for commercial journals. It's really not the dominating factor for costs.
- diffeomorphism 9y ago
  > The peer review often happens by unpaid peers Do you know of an example of paid reviews? This would seem like a big conflict of interest and I have not heard of any but predatory journals doing that. Historically, a large cost was typesetting and print publication. However, print is used less and less in favor of online subscriptions and typesetting is mostly using the publisher's LaTeX style file. The "value" provided by journals seems to be: - communication with the editor (unpaid, mostly senior peer researcher) - review (unpaid peer) - software to manage submissions, reviews etc (commercial) - proofreading for typos and some fine tuning for figures and layout (useful) - prestige of having published in an important journal (very valuable for your career)
Knufen 9y ago
>As for the price I don't think it's really that expensive. There are multiple universities spending millions upon millions (which could be used to further science), to buy subscriptions for all the journals. I know my university spends 10 mil euroes a year. And it's not only about pricing, it's the general trend of commercialising research which should benefint all of humanity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsevier#Pricing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsevier#Pricing I know Elsevier is not the only one, but they are the frontrunner of parasitic behaviour. Edit: Formatting
- dmix 9y ago
  Who does this money go to? Does a percentage go back to the scientists who write the papers?
  - lou1306 9y ago
    It depends... Do you consider 0% "a percentage"?
  - Knufen 9y ago
    The publisher, essentially the researcher gives the rights to his paper in exchange for publishing. Then the publisher put the research behind a paywall and even the researcher who wrote it will have to pay.
    - Bromskloss 9y ago
      > even the researcher who wrote it will have to pay. Eh, pay for what? The author already has the article. Often-times, the agreement furthermore permits limited dissemination of the article by the author, possibly even on the author's web page.
      - diffeomorphism 9y ago
        Pay for color figures in print, for example (a few hundred per figure if I recall correctly). Furthermore, you get an author's copy with watermarks with very limited dissemination rights. You don't get a copy of the journal issue unless you pay. Also, this varies very much by discipline. Math research is pretty universally available on the arXiv, but chemistry or biology is not nearly as pervasive.
  - imglorp 9y ago
    I think the only value-add is the prestige of a given journal. So, just brand. The other comments are saying it's minimal publishing, peer review, and hosting costs. Oh and they spend a bunch on lawyers obviously.
remus 9y ago
> Don't forget the peer review and vetting process. Which is almost universally done for free by the editorial/review panel for the given journal. > As for the price I don't think it's really that expensive. I've never heard of a research University unable to afford it. It would be nice if everyone had access to research, not just those who happen to work in organisations with deep enough pockets. > And if not for the fees we'd have no journals. Why? > Maybe when we are post scarcity then it'd be free. But until then people's time is not unlimited and is worth something. The people who put in the time (editorial board) and expertise (reviewers) aren't getting paid. If they're not getting paid then where is all the money going? Personally I think the value is in the bits that are currently all done for free, Im not sure what value the publishers really add.
- jklein11 9y ago
  It seems that the publisher's value is curating studies that have gone through this process. If you were to find a study through Sci-Hub would you know that it had gone through editorial/review panel? How do you know that the study is trustworthy?
  - remus 9y ago
    Surely that's the work of the editorial board? Again, they are largely unpaid as far as Im aware. This makes interesting reading if you're interested in how a free (or at least very low cost) journal can work https://gowers.wordpress.com/2015/09/10/discrete-analysis-an-arxiv-overlay-journal/ https://gowers.wordpress.com/2015/09/10/discrete-analysis-an...
- HaoZeke 9y ago
  Peer review has little to no financial impact..
- pas 9y ago
  > Which is almost universally done for free by the editorial/review panel for the given journal. Is there good data on this? (I mean, I guess there is, but would someone present it to ignoramuses such as myself? Thanks.)
afpx 9y ago
Remember that a lot of us don't work for research universities, and we can't afford $199 per paper just to read the details that are summarized in the abstract. Also, many landmark papers are several decades old. A lot of time I just want to read the details of an influential paper just to see if I agree with how it is portrayed in popular culture. For example, I recently wanted to read the Dunning Kruger paper to see if it really says what people think it says. And, when James Damore cited research for his Google manifesto - I wanted to see if his conclusions held up. I'm not sure how an average person can make informed judgments without access to these papers. Without Sci-Hub, we must just believe what is fed to us. Since its creation, Sci-Hub has become an essential part of my life.
- vixen99 9y ago
  Ditto for http://sci-hub.cc/ http://sci-hub.cc/. Another example: for those of us (just about everybody) concerned about our health, how do we access authoritative papers on pharamceutical drugs, nutrition, medical conditions etc., Or do we rely on some journalist's piece which is more often than not biased and patronizing? And the irony is that this is almost entirely tax-payer funded research.
anigbrowl 9y ago
I happen to live near a research university and while I'm not a student nobody seems to object to me wandering in and using the libraries there from time to time. But for most people the cost of accessing a journal article for casual interest is prohibitive, and not everyone has the funds or time to attend a university. The point of the web is to make knowledge available to everyone. Be realistic, it costs more to read a single article on Nature or Science than it does to buy a book on the topic. That's bullshit.
- cobookman 9y ago
  > But for most people the cost of accessing a journal article for casual interest is prohibitive And most people don't have access to the facilities to run proper research. R&D is not cheap. As mentioned we live in a capitalistic society. Time is a scare resource, and the current journal editors are putting a price to their time. If you have a passion for cheaper research papers, go ahead and compile papers & start your own free journal. That or help another free journal out. > Be realistic, it costs more to read a single article on Nature or Science than it does to buy a book on the topic. That's bullshit. Its total bullshit. I dont disagree. This might even be a great YC Startup opportunity :D. Until someone competes it'll continue being bullshit.
danielford 9y ago
Community colleges like the one I work at can't afford the journal fees. One of my assignments involves reading several peer-reviewed articles on a narrow topic and writing an explanation of the research. Every semester I have students that struggle with finishing this assignment because the articles they need are inaccessible.
- jstarfish 9y ago
  If the barrier to accessibility is such a problem, why perpetuate it by throwing your students against that wall? The journals' business model does suck, but you're delivering students to a paywalled garden to retrieve information on what amounts to a proprietary topic. You have the power to change this by redirecting the students' attention elsewhere, either by loosening requirements or changing topics to one with more accessible research...
  - danielford 9y ago
    They choose the topic. I'm fine with anything in biology, medicine, chemistry, and even some social science topics. Some of them run into trouble and others don't depending on what they choose. I've considered removing the assignment a few times, but there's no skill more essential to success in science than the ability to synthesize different research articles into a coherent whole. I wouldn't feel like I was doing my job if I stopped assigning it.

Xylakant 9y ago

> Don't forget the peer review and vetting process. The peer review often happens by unpaid peers, even for commercial journals. It's really not the dominating factor for costs.

diffeomorphism 9y ago
> The peer review often happens by unpaid peers Do you know of an example of paid reviews? This would seem like a big conflict of interest and I have not heard of any but predatory journals doing that. Historically, a large cost was typesetting and print publication. However, print is used less and less in favor of online subscriptions and typesetting is mostly using the publisher's LaTeX style file. The "value" provided by journals seems to be: - communication with the editor (unpaid, mostly senior peer researcher) - review (unpaid peer) - software to manage submissions, reviews etc (commercial) - proofreading for typos and some fine tuning for figures and layout (useful) - prestige of having published in an important journal (very valuable for your career)

Knufen 9y ago

>As for the price I don't think it's really that expensive. There are multiple universities spending millions upon millions (which could be used to further science), to buy subscriptions for all the journals. I know my university spends 10 mil euroes a year. And it's not only about pricing, it's the general trend of commercialising research which should benefint all of humanity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsevier#Pricing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsevier#Pricing I know Elsevier is not the only one, but they are the frontrunner of parasitic behaviour. Edit: Formatting

dmix 9y ago
Who does this money go to? Does a percentage go back to the scientists who write the papers?
- lou1306 9y ago
  It depends... Do you consider 0% "a percentage"?
- Knufen 9y ago
  The publisher, essentially the researcher gives the rights to his paper in exchange for publishing. Then the publisher put the research behind a paywall and even the researcher who wrote it will have to pay.
  - Bromskloss 9y ago
    > even the researcher who wrote it will have to pay. Eh, pay for what? The author already has the article. Often-times, the agreement furthermore permits limited dissemination of the article by the author, possibly even on the author's web page.
    - diffeomorphism 9y ago
      Pay for color figures in print, for example (a few hundred per figure if I recall correctly). Furthermore, you get an author's copy with watermarks with very limited dissemination rights. You don't get a copy of the journal issue unless you pay. Also, this varies very much by discipline. Math research is pretty universally available on the arXiv, but chemistry or biology is not nearly as pervasive.
- imglorp 9y ago
  I think the only value-add is the prestige of a given journal. So, just brand. The other comments are saying it's minimal publishing, peer review, and hosting costs. Oh and they spend a bunch on lawyers obviously.

remus 9y ago

> Don't forget the peer review and vetting process. Which is almost universally done for free by the editorial/review panel for the given journal. > As for the price I don't think it's really that expensive. I've never heard of a research University unable to afford it. It would be nice if everyone had access to research, not just those who happen to work in organisations with deep enough pockets. > And if not for the fees we'd have no journals. Why? > Maybe when we are post scarcity then it'd be free. But until then people's time is not unlimited and is worth something. The people who put in the time (editorial board) and expertise (reviewers) aren't getting paid. If they're not getting paid then where is all the money going? Personally I think the value is in the bits that are currently all done for free, Im not sure what value the publishers really add.

jklein11 9y ago
It seems that the publisher's value is curating studies that have gone through this process. If you were to find a study through Sci-Hub would you know that it had gone through editorial/review panel? How do you know that the study is trustworthy?
- remus 9y ago
  Surely that's the work of the editorial board? Again, they are largely unpaid as far as Im aware. This makes interesting reading if you're interested in how a free (or at least very low cost) journal can work https://gowers.wordpress.com/2015/09/10/discrete-analysis-an-arxiv-overlay-journal/ https://gowers.wordpress.com/2015/09/10/discrete-analysis-an...
HaoZeke 9y ago
Peer review has little to no financial impact..
pas 9y ago
> Which is almost universally done for free by the editorial/review panel for the given journal. Is there good data on this? (I mean, I guess there is, but would someone present it to ignoramuses such as myself? Thanks.)

afpx 9y ago

Remember that a lot of us don't work for research universities, and we can't afford $199 per paper just to read the details that are summarized in the abstract. Also, many landmark papers are several decades old. A lot of time I just want to read the details of an influential paper just to see if I agree with how it is portrayed in popular culture. For example, I recently wanted to read the Dunning Kruger paper to see if it really says what people think it says. And, when James Damore cited research for his Google manifesto - I wanted to see if his conclusions held up. I'm not sure how an average person can make informed judgments without access to these papers. Without Sci-Hub, we must just believe what is fed to us. Since its creation, Sci-Hub has become an essential part of my life.

vixen99 9y ago
Ditto for http://sci-hub.cc/ http://sci-hub.cc/. Another example: for those of us (just about everybody) concerned about our health, how do we access authoritative papers on pharamceutical drugs, nutrition, medical conditions etc., Or do we rely on some journalist's piece which is more often than not biased and patronizing? And the irony is that this is almost entirely tax-payer funded research.

anigbrowl 9y ago

I happen to live near a research university and while I'm not a student nobody seems to object to me wandering in and using the libraries there from time to time. But for most people the cost of accessing a journal article for casual interest is prohibitive, and not everyone has the funds or time to attend a university. The point of the web is to make knowledge available to everyone. Be realistic, it costs more to read a single article on Nature or Science than it does to buy a book on the topic. That's bullshit.

cobookman 9y ago
> But for most people the cost of accessing a journal article for casual interest is prohibitive And most people don't have access to the facilities to run proper research. R&D is not cheap. As mentioned we live in a capitalistic society. Time is a scare resource, and the current journal editors are putting a price to their time. If you have a passion for cheaper research papers, go ahead and compile papers & start your own free journal. That or help another free journal out. > Be realistic, it costs more to read a single article on Nature or Science than it does to buy a book on the topic. That's bullshit. Its total bullshit. I dont disagree. This might even be a great YC Startup opportunity :D. Until someone competes it'll continue being bullshit.

danielford 9y ago

Community colleges like the one I work at can't afford the journal fees. One of my assignments involves reading several peer-reviewed articles on a narrow topic and writing an explanation of the research. Every semester I have students that struggle with finishing this assignment because the articles they need are inaccessible.

jstarfish 9y ago
If the barrier to accessibility is such a problem, why perpetuate it by throwing your students against that wall? The journals' business model does suck, but you're delivering students to a paywalled garden to retrieve information on what amounts to a proprietary topic. You have the power to change this by redirecting the students' attention elsewhere, either by loosening requirements or changing topics to one with more accessible research...
- danielford 9y ago
  They choose the topic. I'm fine with anything in biology, medicine, chemistry, and even some social science topics. Some of them run into trouble and others don't depending on what they choose. I've considered removing the assignment a few times, but there's no skill more essential to success in science than the ability to synthesize different research articles into a coherent whole. I wouldn't feel like I was doing my job if I stopped assigning it.