4 ms·

They don't pay for peer review. I'm not sure you mean by "professionally managed" or "edited" exactly - or why that would cost over $100m. (Disclaimer: I wrote

by jph00 7y ago

They don't pay for peer review. I'm not sure you mean by "professionally managed" or "edited" exactly - or why that would cost over $100m. (Disclaimer: I wrote the tweet. Although I didn't expect it to appear on HN...)

denzil_correa 7y ago
Thanks Jeremy for highlighting this issue. A lot of scientific publishers have hijacked "Open Access" to charge high fees for the same publication as before and pocket more money. For example, "Springer Blood Cancer Journal" charges $ 4,580 as OA fees. I can't imagine how one can rationalize that cost.
- Someone 7y ago
  PLOS ONE’s fee is $1,595. A factor of 3 doesn’t seem inexplainable to me. That’s “Springer Nature Blood Cancer Journal”, so factors of 1½ in “better editing”, “older, less efficient systems” and “fewer publications/year, so lower efficiency of scale” could already do it. Also, is Nature working on digitizing old content? That can be costly (I remember reading somewhere that it could involve a) finding a library that has a copy and b) flying there to photograph it) and that’s a cost PLOS won’t ever have.
  - denzil_correa 7y ago
    > PLOS ONE’s fee is $1,595. A factor of 3 doesn’t seem inexplainable to me. You need to first explain why PLOS ONE is an appropriate baseline. A world class Open Access journal costs roughly $10 per submission [0]. Most arguments I have seen using PLOS ONE as a baseline, talk about the "non profit" part of PLOS. It has to be stressed here at that "non profit" doesn't mean PLOS works on a "non profit" business model. It just means that they generate profit AND the profit isn't distributed to its members, directors or officers [1]. [0] https://gowers.wordpress.com/2016/03/01/discrete-analysis-launched/ https://gowers.wordpress.com/2016/03/01/discrete-analysis-la... [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/non-profit_organizations https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/non-profit_organizations
- lultimouomo 7y ago
  It's quite clear how you can rationalize it: * to advance your career you need to publish in certain specific journals * 5 grand is a reasonable amount of money to advance your career therefore: * it is reasonable to pay 5 grands to publish on such a journal
murkt 7y ago
They probably mean administration of a peer review. Someone has to find a suitable reviewer, which can be a bit time-consuming task [1], write to reviewers, just do all the coordination. [1] There are now tools that automate and speed up finding peer reviewers, though, like https://www.prophy.science/referee-finder https://www.prophy.science/referee-finder
- denzil_correa 7y ago
  > Someone has to find a suitable reviewer, which can be a bit time-consuming task [1], write to reviewers, just do all the coordination. This is done by the Program Chairs of the conference who are professors at universities. ACM doesn't do or pay anything for it.
- chrisseaton 7y ago
  > Someone has to find a suitable reviewer, which can be a bit time-consuming task [1], write to reviewers, just do all the coordination. All done by volunteers!

by jph00 7y ago

denzil_correa 7y ago

Thanks Jeremy for highlighting this issue. A lot of scientific publishers have hijacked "Open Access" to charge high fees for the same publication as before and pocket more money. For example, "Springer Blood Cancer Journal" charges $ 4,580 as OA fees. I can't imagine how one can rationalize that cost.

Someone 7y ago
PLOS ONE’s fee is $1,595. A factor of 3 doesn’t seem inexplainable to me. That’s “Springer Nature Blood Cancer Journal”, so factors of 1½ in “better editing”, “older, less efficient systems” and “fewer publications/year, so lower efficiency of scale” could already do it. Also, is Nature working on digitizing old content? That can be costly (I remember reading somewhere that it could involve a) finding a library that has a copy and b) flying there to photograph it) and that’s a cost PLOS won’t ever have.
- denzil_correa 7y ago
  > PLOS ONE’s fee is $1,595. A factor of 3 doesn’t seem inexplainable to me. You need to first explain why PLOS ONE is an appropriate baseline. A world class Open Access journal costs roughly $10 per submission [0]. Most arguments I have seen using PLOS ONE as a baseline, talk about the "non profit" part of PLOS. It has to be stressed here at that "non profit" doesn't mean PLOS works on a "non profit" business model. It just means that they generate profit AND the profit isn't distributed to its members, directors or officers [1]. [0] https://gowers.wordpress.com/2016/03/01/discrete-analysis-launched/ https://gowers.wordpress.com/2016/03/01/discrete-analysis-la... [1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/non-profit_organizations https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/non-profit_organizations
lultimouomo 7y ago
It's quite clear how you can rationalize it: * to advance your career you need to publish in certain specific journals * 5 grand is a reasonable amount of money to advance your career therefore: * it is reasonable to pay 5 grands to publish on such a journal

murkt 7y ago

They probably mean administration of a peer review. Someone has to find a suitable reviewer, which can be a bit time-consuming task [1], write to reviewers, just do all the coordination. [1] There are now tools that automate and speed up finding peer reviewers, though, like https://www.prophy.science/referee-finder https://www.prophy.science/referee-finder

denzil_correa 7y ago
> Someone has to find a suitable reviewer, which can be a bit time-consuming task [1], write to reviewers, just do all the coordination. This is done by the Program Chairs of the conference who are professors at universities. ACM doesn't do or pay anything for it.
chrisseaton 7y ago
> Someone has to find a suitable reviewer, which can be a bit time-consuming task [1], write to reviewers, just do all the coordination. All done by volunteers!