4 ms·

Unfortunately the problem is that University's promote professors based on publications. The solution to this problem seems to be to get rid of promotions base

by stale2002 8y ago

Unfortunately the problem is that University's promote professors based on publications. The solution to this problem seems to be to get rid of promotions based on these for profit publications. If your research isn't open access, then it can't be taken into account for promotions or hiring decisions.

apathy 8y ago
For profit is fine, although their APCs are much higher for OA. The trouble is that even if you do pay the APC, journals routinely screw around by delaying or "erroring" the open version to try and extort suckers. (And they wonder why we now submit our proofs directly to sci-hub...) You pays your money and... (Ask me how I know this) It doesn't take that long to count citations, which defuses the usual excuse for using impact factor as a metric. (And some really shitty journals have surprisingly high impact factors -- they just don't publish much of anything in a given year, e.g. Science Immunology has exactly one primary research article in its entire August 2018 issue!) Ultimately, it's funders who decide what "counts", because indirects from grants (money money money) is the only real currency. You can publish once every five years in the Journal of Irreproducible Results, but if you have a $20M P01 for those five years, you're getting promoted anyways. So when Chan-Zuckerberg or the Gates foundation says "OA or nothing", then it matters. Universities will keep licking their balls until the purse strings tighten, but once that happens, hoo-eee! It's amazing how quick them OA pubs count for promotion. (Secret: it was never the publications.)
OnlyLys 8y ago
> Unfortunately the problem is that University's promote professors based on publications. Not just that. At some universities professors can lose their jobs if they don't get enough funding within a year. “I am of the opinion that you are struggling to fulfil the metrics of a Professorial post at Imperial College which include maintaining established funding in a programme of research with an attributable share of research spend of £200k p.a and must now start to give serious consideration as to whether you are performing at the expected level of a Professor at Imperial College." http://www.dcscience.net/2014/12/23/some-experiences-of-life-at-imperial-college-london-an-external-inquiry-is-needed-after-the-death-of-stefan-grimm/ http://www.dcscience.net/2014/12/23/some-experiences-of-life...
- patient_zero 8y ago
  It was reaaally hard to read that link, since I kept getting cross-eyed with rage.

apathy 8y ago

For profit is fine, although their APCs are much higher for OA. The trouble is that even if you do pay the APC, journals routinely screw around by delaying or "erroring" the open version to try and extort suckers. (And they wonder why we now submit our proofs directly to sci-hub...) You pays your money and... (Ask me how I know this) It doesn't take that long to count citations, which defuses the usual excuse for using impact factor as a metric. (And some really shitty journals have surprisingly high impact factors -- they just don't publish much of anything in a given year, e.g. Science Immunology has exactly one primary research article in its entire August 2018 issue!) Ultimately, it's funders who decide what "counts", because indirects from grants (money money money) is the only real currency. You can publish once every five years in the Journal of Irreproducible Results, but if you have a $20M P01 for those five years, you're getting promoted anyways. So when Chan-Zuckerberg or the Gates foundation says "OA or nothing", then it matters. Universities will keep licking their balls until the purse strings tighten, but once that happens, hoo-eee! It's amazing how quick them OA pubs count for promotion. (Secret: it was never the publications.)

OnlyLys 8y ago

> Unfortunately the problem is that University's promote professors based on publications. Not just that. At some universities professors can lose their jobs if they don't get enough funding within a year. “I am of the opinion that you are struggling to fulfil the metrics of a Professorial post at Imperial College which include maintaining established funding in a programme of research with an attributable share of research spend of £200k p.a and must now start to give serious consideration as to whether you are performing at the expected level of a Professor at Imperial College." http://www.dcscience.net/2014/12/23/some-experiences-of-life-at-imperial-college-london-an-external-inquiry-is-needed-after-the-death-of-stefan-grimm/ http://www.dcscience.net/2014/12/23/some-experiences-of-life...

patient_zero 8y ago
It was reaaally hard to read that link, since I kept getting cross-eyed with rage.