5 ms·

Correction, "Our total costs probably average about $30 per accepted article." https://discreteanalysisjournal.com/post/40 https://discreteanalysisjournal.com/p

Correction, "Our total costs probably average about $30 per accepted article." https://discreteanalysisjournal.com/post/40 https://discreteanalysisjournal.com/post/40 And that seems to be as bare bones as one can do, as they don't proofread and Scholastica is only used for peer review costing 10$ per submission.

Certhas 7y ago
I was quoting the number for submitted articles from Gowers blog, your number is accepted. Also, proofreading at publishers basically doesn't happen any more. And even if it would, it certainly doesn't account for the difference in price, not even remotely close. You can call it bare bones, but as a scientist, it is very hard to see what value IEEE adds above this "bare bones" approach.
- b215826 7y ago
  > Also, proofreading at publishers basically doesn't happen any more. I'm sorry, but which publishers are you talking about here? I've published with several publishers in my field (physics) including APS, AIP, AAS, EPS, Springer, etc., and almost all of them do moderate to extensive copy editing, even for journals that aren't exactly high-impact. > it certainly doesn't account for the difference in price, not even remotely close. This is of course true, and I agree. But starting an argument against conventional journals by comparing their costs of operation with that of a preprint repository is disingenuous. And that is where I take issue.
  - Certhas 7y ago
    But it's really not disingenuous. They simply don't provide value for money. They are, in economic terms, rentiers. Arxiv isn't all of the cost, but the arxiv costs are order of magnitude accurate, that's what Gowers showed. In physics JHEP is a good example of a high class arxiv overlay journal that is extremely successful without APCs. The IOP and DPG with NJP also charge half of what IEEE Access do, and they are among the journals that actually provide some copy editing. As far as I recall my publications with the APS did not have any substantial proof reading done. I actually think proof reading is a really valuable service, and I would be happy to pay for it optionally or in a transparent fashion. But even with proof reading we don't get to 1000s of dollars. My understanding from talking to editors is that for professional societies, journal income subsidises other activities. Which is fine, but I would like to see that transparently declared. "APC 150$, Contribution to other IEEE activities 1500$". Structurally it's also questionable that library budgets should finance professional societies, but that's really the least of my concerns.
    - b215826 7y ago
      > In physics JHEP is a good example of a high class arxiv overlay journal that is extremely successful without APCs. I don't think JHEP is an overlay journal anymore. AFAIK, JHEP is now published by SISSA/Springer with funds from CERN/SCOAP. SCOAP also pays for most articles in Phys. Lett. B and some articles in Phys. Rev. D. But SCOAP probably doesn't pay for open access as much as individual authors would have to. > As far as I recall my publications with the APS did not have any substantial proof reading done. APS did do a moderate amount of copyediting when I published with them in 2015. They (and most publishers) also check papers for plagiarism, and it's my understanding that the third-party services that they use for this charge a hefty fee [1]. arXiv only compares submissions with existing preprints on arXiv and not other journals. > My understanding from talking to editors is that for professional societies, journal income subsidises other activities. Which is fine, but I would like to see that transparently declared. I totally agree with the sentiment that most publishers charge way more than they should for open-access options. Premium open-access-only journals like Phys. Rev. X and Nat. Comm. are also problematic since it discourages authors who have smaller budgets and grants from submitting their papers to these journals. [1] https://www.ithenticate.com/products https://www.ithenticate.com/products

Certhas 7y ago

I was quoting the number for submitted articles from Gowers blog, your number is accepted. Also, proofreading at publishers basically doesn't happen any more. And even if it would, it certainly doesn't account for the difference in price, not even remotely close. You can call it bare bones, but as a scientist, it is very hard to see what value IEEE adds above this "bare bones" approach.

b215826 7y ago
> Also, proofreading at publishers basically doesn't happen any more. I'm sorry, but which publishers are you talking about here? I've published with several publishers in my field (physics) including APS, AIP, AAS, EPS, Springer, etc., and almost all of them do moderate to extensive copy editing, even for journals that aren't exactly high-impact. > it certainly doesn't account for the difference in price, not even remotely close. This is of course true, and I agree. But starting an argument against conventional journals by comparing their costs of operation with that of a preprint repository is disingenuous. And that is where I take issue.
- Certhas 7y ago
  But it's really not disingenuous. They simply don't provide value for money. They are, in economic terms, rentiers. Arxiv isn't all of the cost, but the arxiv costs are order of magnitude accurate, that's what Gowers showed. In physics JHEP is a good example of a high class arxiv overlay journal that is extremely successful without APCs. The IOP and DPG with NJP also charge half of what IEEE Access do, and they are among the journals that actually provide some copy editing. As far as I recall my publications with the APS did not have any substantial proof reading done. I actually think proof reading is a really valuable service, and I would be happy to pay for it optionally or in a transparent fashion. But even with proof reading we don't get to 1000s of dollars. My understanding from talking to editors is that for professional societies, journal income subsidises other activities. Which is fine, but I would like to see that transparently declared. "APC 150$, Contribution to other IEEE activities 1500$". Structurally it's also questionable that library budgets should finance professional societies, but that's really the least of my concerns.
  - b215826 7y ago
    > In physics JHEP is a good example of a high class arxiv overlay journal that is extremely successful without APCs. I don't think JHEP is an overlay journal anymore. AFAIK, JHEP is now published by SISSA/Springer with funds from CERN/SCOAP. SCOAP also pays for most articles in Phys. Lett. B and some articles in Phys. Rev. D. But SCOAP probably doesn't pay for open access as much as individual authors would have to. > As far as I recall my publications with the APS did not have any substantial proof reading done. APS did do a moderate amount of copyediting when I published with them in 2015. They (and most publishers) also check papers for plagiarism, and it's my understanding that the third-party services that they use for this charge a hefty fee [1]. arXiv only compares submissions with existing preprints on arXiv and not other journals. > My understanding from talking to editors is that for professional societies, journal income subsidises other activities. Which is fine, but I would like to see that transparently declared. I totally agree with the sentiment that most publishers charge way more than they should for open-access options. Premium open-access-only journals like Phys. Rev. X and Nat. Comm. are also problematic since it discourages authors who have smaller budgets and grants from submitting their papers to these journals. [1] https://www.ithenticate.com/products https://www.ithenticate.com/products