3 ms·

In the grand scheme of things, the academia complex is funded by taxpayers to produce academic work. It used to be that journals would at least do good editoria

In the grand scheme of things, the academia complex is funded by taxpayers to produce academic work. It used to be that journals would at least do good editorial work, help with editing, formatting, and perhaps even graphics. All of this work is now on the author, so the question increasingly becomes, why does a taxpayer not only pay for the lab to produce research, but also the $3,000 to 5,000 or more fee to have something published, depending on the journal. Furthermore, once the research was paid for by the taxpayer, the scientist's time wasted to format the research, and the journal paid for the privilege to publish the paper- these institutions have to pay once again for access to these papers once published. In a way, journals in the 21st century are double or triple dipping on citizens, all so we can share our work.

dmitryminkovsky 5y ago
There’s a book from 1970 by Paul Goodman called New Reformation that I recently started reading that’s all about the issues surrounding government funding of science. It’s pretty interesting. Apparently there were walkouts at institutions like MIT, CalTech etc in the 60s protesting government intrusion into the sciences, but it seems to have had little effect: government funds science to get the research it thinks is important, and as you write, taxpayers pay for it many times over.
- nosianu 5y ago
  > government funds science to get the research it thinks is important How is this anything special about funding from governments specifically? This is part of "funding", period. Unless you setup an open bank account for free withdrawals from anyone who wants to do some science, no questions asked. Somebody decides what gets funded, unless those doing the research use their own money.
  - Ultimatt 5y ago
    The somebody matters though, what a ridiculous statement. In the UK most funding is protected via funding councils and royal charters so that it's never directly the incumbent government deciding what is and is not researched. There are still things like ministry of defence funding though, especially in areas like engineering. I was always quite uncomfortable when the MoD guy would visit the robotics lab and decide what could and could not be useful for military purpose. In part because he lacked the imagination to realise all of it could.
    - nosianu 5y ago
      > what a ridiculous statement Oh a personal attack, thank you! I on the other hand find your statement to be the ridiculous one. You fail to add any followable logic (not even an attempt) why someone working for the government makes worse suggestions for research than someone else. Government sponsored research won WWII and laid the foundation for Silicon Valley (https://youtu.be/ZTC_RxWN_xo https://youtu.be/ZTC_RxWN_xo). Government sponsored research goes back for far longer and was the basis for much of what we have now, just thinking of all the things e.g. the UK government sponsored to get ahead on the seas (navigation, ship types, etc.).
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
Fomite 5y ago
"It used to be that journals would at least do good editorial work, help with editing, formatting, and perhaps even graphics. All of this work is now on the author" Not universally.

dmitryminkovsky 5y ago

There’s a book from 1970 by Paul Goodman called New Reformation that I recently started reading that’s all about the issues surrounding government funding of science. It’s pretty interesting. Apparently there were walkouts at institutions like MIT, CalTech etc in the 60s protesting government intrusion into the sciences, but it seems to have had little effect: government funds science to get the research it thinks is important, and as you write, taxpayers pay for it many times over.

nosianu 5y ago
> government funds science to get the research it thinks is important How is this anything special about funding from governments specifically? This is part of "funding", period. Unless you setup an open bank account for free withdrawals from anyone who wants to do some science, no questions asked. Somebody decides what gets funded, unless those doing the research use their own money.
- Ultimatt 5y ago
  The somebody matters though, what a ridiculous statement. In the UK most funding is protected via funding councils and royal charters so that it's never directly the incumbent government deciding what is and is not researched. There are still things like ministry of defence funding though, especially in areas like engineering. I was always quite uncomfortable when the MoD guy would visit the robotics lab and decide what could and could not be useful for military purpose. In part because he lacked the imagination to realise all of it could.
  - nosianu 5y ago
    > what a ridiculous statement Oh a personal attack, thank you! I on the other hand find your statement to be the ridiculous one. You fail to add any followable logic (not even an attempt) why someone working for the government makes worse suggestions for research than someone else. Government sponsored research won WWII and laid the foundation for Silicon Valley (https://youtu.be/ZTC_RxWN_xo https://youtu.be/ZTC_RxWN_xo). Government sponsored research goes back for far longer and was the basis for much of what we have now, just thinking of all the things e.g. the UK government sponsored to get ahead on the seas (navigation, ship types, etc.).
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

Fomite 5y ago

"It used to be that journals would at least do good editorial work, help with editing, formatting, and perhaps even graphics. All of this work is now on the author" Not universally.