3 ms·
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 defini
by 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 agoI 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 agoSome grants require open access, which unfortunately often translates to tax money being transferred to big publishers.
- ineedasername 5y agoWithout 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.