3 ms·
> the publisher that makes you work for free They don't make you do anything. I don't even understand under what mechanism you think publishers are making peop
by chrisseaton 5y ago
> the publisher that makes you work for free
They don't make you do anything. I don't even understand under what mechanism you think publishers are making people do things?
And you aren't working for the publisher - you're working for the community, paid by your employer.
> selling your work to you
They don't sell my reviews or my papers to me.
- nmfisher 5y agoBut isn’t the “value” of a journal in the supposed quality of its publications? And the strength of its review process is a highly influential in maintaining that quality? If so, I’d say the publisher definitely is exploiting academics for free review.
- Jensson 5y agoYou do realize that modern academic journals with these peer reviews didn't exist until pretty recently? Science doesn't need them, you can review papers publicly and actually contribute to the community, but instead these publishers convinced scientists that the publisher is the science instead of the other way around. Read Nature's original mission statement, does this sound like the publisher we know today? > It is intended, FIRST, to place before the general public the grand results of Scientific Work and Scientific Discovery; and to urge the claims of Science to a more general recognition in Education and in Daily Life; and, SECONDLY, to aid Scientific men themselves, by giving early information of all advances made in any branch of Natural knowledge throughout the world, and by affording them an opportunity of discussing the various Scientific questions which arise from time to time. https://media.nature.com/full/nature-cms/uploads/ckeditor/attachments/7568/mission.pdf https://media.nature.com/full/nature-cms/uploads/ckeditor/at...
- chrisseaton 5y agoI'm not sure which of my points you're responding to? I'd agree with all of that already.