4 ms·

What you're looking for are called "Open Access" journals. There are a few lists on the web, such as http://www.doaj.org/ http://www.doaj.org/ . There has bee

by mbreese 16y ago

What you're looking for are called "Open Access" journals. There are a few lists on the web, such as http://www.doaj.org/ http://www.doaj.org/ . There has been a big push recently for Open Access to scientific data, especially NIH funded studies. I don't know how this is for NSF funded work though. PLoS is the poster child of this movement, but others have been around for longer, such as the BioMed Central (BMC) family of journals. There are a lot of costs involved in the process of producing a scientific journal: printing, editing, hosting PDFs/supplemental data, etc... These are not insignificant costs. Usually the costs of this are split between the submitter and the subscriber (hence why sometimes articles include a disclaimer that they are an advertisement). Open Access journals will force these costs over to the submitter completely, leaving access to the articles free.

clp16 16y ago
If these costs are forced over to the submitter, the stereotypical "money-ignoring" researcher, those costs will begin the weigh heavily on their shoulders. Without support from their hosting institutions, which means a change in how business is done, those articles might find themselves with small, yet significant price tags. Look at textbooks.
- cwhittle 16y ago
  At least for the NIH, they now allow publication costs to be funded in grant applications. Also, many institutions have now set up funds to help offset the open access publication charges.
forkandwait 16y ago
Let's look at these costs a little bit, and whether they still apply with the internet -- Printing: No need to have printed journals at all ever again. If a library wants an archive they can do it on their local hp and bind it. Free. Reviewing: Done by volunteers. Free. Editing: Done in the reviewing process, plus journals don't "work with" authors helping them to craft their paragraphs. There is an editor who might say "this is unreadable, resubmit", but that's all. Free or darn close. Creating PDF's or publishable documents: This now happens on the researchers desk, and is basically free once you buy office software. There are plenty of people in a university to prep an article to be really, really pretty if you bother to print it out. Free. Hosting PDF's and data: Universities have enough leftover computers and FTE's that they can do this without charging an account. Free. So what is the cost to an open journal? The fact that it is going to inevitably do to the academic journal business what craigslist did to the newspaper classified business.... Sorry, time marches on.
- tzs 16y ago
  > Reviewing: Done by volunteers. Free Hmmm...work on one's own research in order to generate a paper that can get citations and advance one's career, or take time away from that to review other people's papers for free.
  - notahacker 16y ago
    In most academic disciplines reading and critically analysing current research on a particular topic is a fundamental part of generating research papers. Even startup founders competing in the fast-moving world of business seem to find time to read and give feedback on things that interest them. I don't think a shortage of people willing to review papers is going to be a problem, and if it is, it's a problem that could easily be solved by the prestigious open access journals requiring those submitting papers to set aside time to participate in the peer review process of others' papers
    - tzs 16y ago
      > In most academic disciplines reading and critically analysing current research on a particular topic is a fundamental part of generating research papers Isn't that generally done by reading new papers that have been published AFTER they have been reviewed? > I don't think a shortage of people willing to review papers is going to be a problem, and if it is, it's a problem that could easily be solved by the prestigious open access journals requiring those submitting papers to set aside time to participate in the peer review process of others' papers. I don't think that's a good solution, because I'd rather have the best researchers doing research, rather than reviewing the papers of lesser researchers. What I think we need to do is recognize that researching and reviewing research are not necessarily done by the best people. For instance there are subjects where I probably could never become a researcher, because I just don't for some reason come up with new ideas in those subjects, but I can understand the new ideas others come up. Hence, I could potentially be a decent reviewer in those subjects. What could work would be a system where we have reviewer as a separate profession. Researchers submit papers to reviewers who review them and give feedback, and an overall rating which is digitally signed. When a paper is published (by whatever means--open access journal, the researcher's blog, whatever), the signed reviewer ratings can also be included. Over time, reviewers would develop reputations with readers, and researchers would hire high reputation reviewers to review their papers, allowing the good reviewers to make reviewing their full time job. When someone posts an unreviewed paper at arXiv.org, I'd expect that reviewers who have not built up reputations would review it for free, and publish their reviews. I'd expect sites would spring up specifically to host these reviews. It would be through these sites that new reviewers would built up their reputations to where researchers will start to pay them to get reviews.

by mbreese 16y ago

clp16 16y ago

If these costs are forced over to the submitter, the stereotypical "money-ignoring" researcher, those costs will begin the weigh heavily on their shoulders. Without support from their hosting institutions, which means a change in how business is done, those articles might find themselves with small, yet significant price tags. Look at textbooks.

cwhittle 16y ago
At least for the NIH, they now allow publication costs to be funded in grant applications. Also, many institutions have now set up funds to help offset the open access publication charges.

forkandwait 16y ago

Let's look at these costs a little bit, and whether they still apply with the internet -- Printing: No need to have printed journals at all ever again. If a library wants an archive they can do it on their local hp and bind it. Free. Reviewing: Done by volunteers. Free. Editing: Done in the reviewing process, plus journals don't "work with" authors helping them to craft their paragraphs. There is an editor who might say "this is unreadable, resubmit", but that's all. Free or darn close. Creating PDF's or publishable documents: This now happens on the researchers desk, and is basically free once you buy office software. There are plenty of people in a university to prep an article to be really, really pretty if you bother to print it out. Free. Hosting PDF's and data: Universities have enough leftover computers and FTE's that they can do this without charging an account. Free. So what is the cost to an open journal? The fact that it is going to inevitably do to the academic journal business what craigslist did to the newspaper classified business.... Sorry, time marches on.

tzs 16y ago
> Reviewing: Done by volunteers. Free Hmmm...work on one's own research in order to generate a paper that can get citations and advance one's career, or take time away from that to review other people's papers for free.
- notahacker 16y ago
  In most academic disciplines reading and critically analysing current research on a particular topic is a fundamental part of generating research papers. Even startup founders competing in the fast-moving world of business seem to find time to read and give feedback on things that interest them. I don't think a shortage of people willing to review papers is going to be a problem, and if it is, it's a problem that could easily be solved by the prestigious open access journals requiring those submitting papers to set aside time to participate in the peer review process of others' papers
  - tzs 16y ago
    > In most academic disciplines reading and critically analysing current research on a particular topic is a fundamental part of generating research papers Isn't that generally done by reading new papers that have been published AFTER they have been reviewed? > I don't think a shortage of people willing to review papers is going to be a problem, and if it is, it's a problem that could easily be solved by the prestigious open access journals requiring those submitting papers to set aside time to participate in the peer review process of others' papers. I don't think that's a good solution, because I'd rather have the best researchers doing research, rather than reviewing the papers of lesser researchers. What I think we need to do is recognize that researching and reviewing research are not necessarily done by the best people. For instance there are subjects where I probably could never become a researcher, because I just don't for some reason come up with new ideas in those subjects, but I can understand the new ideas others come up. Hence, I could potentially be a decent reviewer in those subjects. What could work would be a system where we have reviewer as a separate profession. Researchers submit papers to reviewers who review them and give feedback, and an overall rating which is digitally signed. When a paper is published (by whatever means--open access journal, the researcher's blog, whatever), the signed reviewer ratings can also be included. Over time, reviewers would develop reputations with readers, and researchers would hire high reputation reviewers to review their papers, allowing the good reviewers to make reviewing their full time job. When someone posts an unreviewed paper at arXiv.org, I'd expect that reviewers who have not built up reputations would review it for free, and publish their reviews. I'd expect sites would spring up specifically to host these reviews. It would be through these sites that new reviewers would built up their reputations to where researchers will start to pay them to get reviews.