4 ms·

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

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 (And that seems like a strong argument - unpublished research has little value, like unpublished software.)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.