3 ms·
The publishers in this case are the free riders. They not only get free content from the authors, free labor from the reviewers. They get to charge the reader
by whatever1 4y ago
The publishers in this case are the free riders.
They not only get free content from the authors, free labor from the reviewers.
They get to charge the readers but also THE FREAKING AUTHORS for their submissions.
- endisneigh 4y agoThe authors are voluntarily submitting their work and agreeing to any contractual provisions, no? Scientists are not obligated to publish in journals at all.
- FridgeSeal 4y agoYes voluntarily. Much the same way you’ll voluntarily do something when someone who holds a position of power over you asks you to do something. As numerous other people have pointed out, there is no small amount of career advancement riding on the back of being published in a journal. Until the culture of publish-or-perish can be removed from universities and publishers can be removed from their position as rent-seeking parasites, this dynamic will continue.
- endisneigh 4y agoOr people can be scientists with day jobs and fund themselves. Clearly there are pros and cons with either approach. Fundamentally there’s no difference than say bootstrapping a company or seeking investment.
- oefrha 4y agoYes, protection rackets can be described as “voluntary”.
- musicale 4y ago> Scientists are not obligated to publish in journals at all Yes, "publish or perish" technically provides two options. ;-) But it would be nice to see Elsevier and its ilk replaced with true open access journals (without open access fees), and for everything to be available on arxiv.org or similar sites.