4 ms·

All academics do. You don't actually get directly paid for publishing journal articles. You get zero cut of the sales. Books are a different story, although mos

All academics do. You don't actually get directly paid for publishing journal articles. You get zero cut of the sales. Books are a different story, although most academic books don't actually make a profit. As an academic, you get paid for teaching and to carry out research grants to support a particular project. The teaching and grants pay for your salary and expenses through the university. You do need to keep publishing at the end if you ever want to get a grant again. But when you publish in a traditional journal article, you have to hand over the copyright to the publisher that owns the brand and trademark to "Nature" or "Science" or "The New England Journal of Medicine" for free. You don't get a cut of the profits, you get the prestige of the privately-owned systems, which matters to your employer and grant funding agencies. In fact, now you actually have to pay to publish if you want anyone on the internet to be able to read it for free. For Nature, the open access "article processing charge" is $11,390. It has become the norm to now budget in these fees in your research grants, which makes it more difficult for those who don't get big grants to publish. Yes it is bullshit. That is why so many academics support sci-hub.

wolverine876 5y ago
You're paid a salary to do experiments and publish, no? I'm not saying the other issues aren't serious problems.
- beckman466 5y ago
  Your original argument doesn't make sense though. The point is that at the time of publication the papers have already been paid for (and yes, this includes the salaries of the researchers/authors). Researchers/authors don't actually need to make any money off of the papers. And even when Elsevier does sell a paper, the author does not receive a royalty [1]. [1] https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/109003/why-are-academics-not-paid-royalties-on-published-research-papers-in-ieee-acm-e https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/109003/why-are-...
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    From a business point of view, this seems like a fine, philosophical, argumentative distinction: If we say part of the process of research is preparing the paper, then the researcher is paid for preparing it. (And that seems like a strong argument - unpublished research has little value, like unpublished software.) If we say the process of research doesn't include preparing the paper, going to the bathroom, going to a conference, watering the plants in the break room, etc. - the researcher is unpaid. The real question is, should researchers have the resources to delegate such non-specialized work, and the answer is yes. Serious question: Isn't this a good job for noob research assistants? They'll learn about the topic, learn the tools and ways of the industry and lab, and you weed out those who lack commitment, motivation, attention to detail.
ncmncm 5y ago
You do not, in fact, need to hand over copyright to Nature, NEJM, etc. They do their best to make it look like you do, but you can go all the way through the approval process without committing. At the end, all they need is license from you to publish. Never sign over copyright to a journal. It is never necessary, it is never sensible, it is never wise.

wolverine876 5y ago

You're paid a salary to do experiments and publish, no? I'm not saying the other issues aren't serious problems.

beckman466 5y ago
Your original argument doesn't make sense though. The point is that at the time of publication the papers have already been paid for (and yes, this includes the salaries of the researchers/authors). Researchers/authors don't actually need to make any money off of the papers. And even when Elsevier does sell a paper, the author does not receive a royalty [1]. [1] https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/109003/why-are-academics-not-paid-royalties-on-published-research-papers-in-ieee-acm-e https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/109003/why-are-...
- wolverine876 5y ago
  From a business point of view, this seems like a fine, philosophical, argumentative distinction: If we say part of the process of research is preparing the paper, then the researcher is paid for preparing it. (And that seems like a strong argument - unpublished research has little value, like unpublished software.) If we say the process of research doesn't include preparing the paper, going to the bathroom, going to a conference, watering the plants in the break room, etc. - the researcher is unpaid. The real question is, should researchers have the resources to delegate such non-specialized work, and the answer is yes. Serious question: Isn't this a good job for noob research assistants? They'll learn about the topic, learn the tools and ways of the industry and lab, and you weed out those who lack commitment, motivation, attention to detail.

ncmncm 5y ago

You do not, in fact, need to hand over copyright to Nature, NEJM, etc. They do their best to make it look like you do, but you can go all the way through the approval process without committing. At the end, all they need is license from you to publish. Never sign over copyright to a journal. It is never necessary, it is never sensible, it is never wise.