4 ms·

https://blog.joss.theoj.org/2019/06/cost-models-for-running-an-online-open-journal https://blog.joss.theoj.org/2019/06/cost-models-for-running-... "The Journal

https://blog.joss.theoj.org/2019/06/cost-models-for-running-an-online-open-journal https://blog.joss.theoj.org/2019/06/cost-models-for-running-... "The Journal of Open Source Software (JOSS) is a free, open-access online journal, with no article processing charge (APC). We are committed to operating as a free service to our community, and we do so thanks to the volunteer labor of editors and reviewers, and by taking advantage of existing infrastructure. In this post, we examine the true costs of running a journal such as JOSS, and make the case that even when considering all services we don’t currently pay for, the true cost per paper would not exceed $100. Current APCs at many “gold” open-access journals exceed that by one or more orders of magnitude, (see, for example, PNAS, Nature, IEEE, etc.)"

steppi 5y ago
I published a paper in JOSS and it was by far the most pleasant and transparent journal submission and review process I’ve ever gone through. It felt like the future of academic publishing that I wish we could have distributed more widely today.
robwwilliams 5y ago
Go JOSS! Yes, the cost is excruciating and beyond excessive. Given that every submission can be preceded by multiple bioRxiv versions and followed by a definitive PubMed Central version that was reviewed (perhaps embargoed for 6-12 months), who actually pays these charges? I suspect this is a theoretical charge in most cases. The exception might be for those who are compelled to provide immediate unfettered access to their work.
- daxuak 5y ago
  I have seen publisher making open access mandatory, with an outrageous fee attached to it. Also,iirc the pubmed central thing only apply to works with certain funds (i.e. NIH), many articles do not get to there.
  - zibzab 5y ago
    Some grants require open access, which unfortunately often translates to tax money being transferred to big publishers.
    - ineedasername 5y ago
      Without it, tax money still transfers to publishers, only via a less direct route. It funds the research that produces content, without which the publishers would have nothing of value to sell. I really don't like the high APC practice, but if tax money is going to the publishers anyway then I have a little bit of tolerance for slightly more going there to add significant value with open access.
KennyBlanken 5y ago
PNAS, in case anyone is not aware, is the journal where members of the Academy of Sciences publish research they can't publish anywhere else for various reasons. It's a dumping ground for PIs desperate to get something published.
- canjobear 5y ago
  PNAS has two tracks. One is extremely selective, with thorough review. The other, which is marked with “communicated by” in the byline on the papers, is as you describe: NAS members can send in more or less anything they want.
- frozenport 5y ago
  Proceedings Not Accepted by Science But it does require a "hook up" which tends to screen out the low IF 3 quality stuff
ma2rten 5y ago
In Machine Learning the top journal JMLR is also completely free and open access. Nature tried to introduce a machine learning journal but it is being boycotted by many researchers.
- zibzab 5y ago
  Someone on HN should compile a big list of top free-open journals for various fields.
- AmazThrowAway 5y ago
  But not all! In fact lots of people, to my surprise, are publishing in Nature: Machine Intelligence
  - ta988 5y ago
    Because they can brag annd say "I published in Nature". I've seen that so often, same thing with the various "Science something" journals that get transformed as "In my Science article..."
    - semi-extrinsic 5y ago
      The best is the borderline-predatory journal called "Journal of Nature and Science". "My track record includes numerous publications in Nature and Science."
      - djhn 5y ago
        That is amazing.
blagie 5y ago
The costs are exaggerated. For example, it is not possible to replicably develop that software infrastructure for $50k. It is possible as a one-off if you're an engineer working on your own project, but for example, a biology journal couldn't drop $50k on that infrastructure. A lot of these things rely on individual heroics. I appreciate heroics, but they don't scale to an industry. I'm glad for the good work they're doing.
- ta988 5y ago
  Publication and diffusion software can be Free there are a lot of options. Often university libraries even provide them with support for you.
  - blagie 5y ago
    They're free only if sysadmin time is free. It's the same rabbit hole. In practice, maintaining, supporting, and running a server, especially with archival-grade backups and retention -- is gonna require more than $50k (let alone $5k) of human time each year. You can't pretend there is no cost or that the cost is an order-of-magnitude lower than it is. At that point, you end up with solutions which can't work. Many people would gladly donate a megabuck a year if a significant portion of science went open as a result. People won't do that if you pretend the annual costs are $5k. Likewise, university libraries fielding that cost is a good solution -- and far cheaper than journals -- but it won't work if you pretend the cost figure is lower than it is.
    - ta988 5y ago
      I said Free as in Free software. Of course there is a cost. But this is nothing compared to the tens of millions of dollars a state university has to pay each publisher each year.

steppi 5y ago

I published a paper in JOSS and it was by far the most pleasant and transparent journal submission and review process I’ve ever gone through. It felt like the future of academic publishing that I wish we could have distributed more widely today.

robwwilliams 5y ago

Go JOSS! Yes, the cost is excruciating and beyond excessive. Given that every submission can be preceded by multiple bioRxiv versions and followed by a definitive PubMed Central version that was reviewed (perhaps embargoed for 6-12 months), who actually pays these charges? I suspect this is a theoretical charge in most cases. The exception might be for those who are compelled to provide immediate unfettered access to their work.

daxuak 5y ago
I have seen publisher making open access mandatory, with an outrageous fee attached to it. Also,iirc the pubmed central thing only apply to works with certain funds (i.e. NIH), many articles do not get to there.
- zibzab 5y ago
  Some grants require open access, which unfortunately often translates to tax money being transferred to big publishers.
  - ineedasername 5y ago
    Without it, tax money still transfers to publishers, only via a less direct route. It funds the research that produces content, without which the publishers would have nothing of value to sell. I really don't like the high APC practice, but if tax money is going to the publishers anyway then I have a little bit of tolerance for slightly more going there to add significant value with open access.

KennyBlanken 5y ago

PNAS, in case anyone is not aware, is the journal where members of the Academy of Sciences publish research they can't publish anywhere else for various reasons. It's a dumping ground for PIs desperate to get something published.

canjobear 5y ago
PNAS has two tracks. One is extremely selective, with thorough review. The other, which is marked with “communicated by” in the byline on the papers, is as you describe: NAS members can send in more or less anything they want.
frozenport 5y ago
Proceedings Not Accepted by Science But it does require a "hook up" which tends to screen out the low IF 3 quality stuff

ma2rten 5y ago

In Machine Learning the top journal JMLR is also completely free and open access. Nature tried to introduce a machine learning journal but it is being boycotted by many researchers.

zibzab 5y ago
Someone on HN should compile a big list of top free-open journals for various fields.
AmazThrowAway 5y ago
But not all! In fact lots of people, to my surprise, are publishing in Nature: Machine Intelligence
- ta988 5y ago
  Because they can brag annd say "I published in Nature". I've seen that so often, same thing with the various "Science something" journals that get transformed as "In my Science article..."
  - semi-extrinsic 5y ago
    The best is the borderline-predatory journal called "Journal of Nature and Science". "My track record includes numerous publications in Nature and Science."
    - djhn 5y ago
      That is amazing.

blagie 5y ago

The costs are exaggerated. For example, it is not possible to replicably develop that software infrastructure for $50k. It is possible as a one-off if you're an engineer working on your own project, but for example, a biology journal couldn't drop $50k on that infrastructure. A lot of these things rely on individual heroics. I appreciate heroics, but they don't scale to an industry. I'm glad for the good work they're doing.

ta988 5y ago
Publication and diffusion software can be Free there are a lot of options. Often university libraries even provide them with support for you.
- blagie 5y ago
  They're free only if sysadmin time is free. It's the same rabbit hole. In practice, maintaining, supporting, and running a server, especially with archival-grade backups and retention -- is gonna require more than $50k (let alone $5k) of human time each year. You can't pretend there is no cost or that the cost is an order-of-magnitude lower than it is. At that point, you end up with solutions which can't work. Many people would gladly donate a megabuck a year if a significant portion of science went open as a result. People won't do that if you pretend the annual costs are $5k. Likewise, university libraries fielding that cost is a good solution -- and far cheaper than journals -- but it won't work if you pretend the cost figure is lower than it is.
  - ta988 5y ago
    I said Free as in Free software. Of course there is a cost. But this is nothing compared to the tens of millions of dollars a state university has to pay each publisher each year.