4 ms·

This is bad news masquerading as good news. Now they force you to pay 2.3k GBP to publish an article. Previously it was free, unless you wanted it to make it i

This is bad news masquerading as good news. Now they force you to pay 2.3k GBP to publish an article. Previously it was free, unless you wanted it to make it immediately accessible on the website. People in astrophysics always did put articles on arxiv.org anyway, so papers were already accessible to everyone (in a non-typeset/not-proofread form), but now it will be the same, but everyone will have to pay 2.3 kGBP per paper. Also a useful comparison. The subscription to MNRAS for the institution was 6.5 kGBP. So any institution that publishes more than 2 papers a year will pay way more then before. Also none of the referees are payed. Also, some funding agencies (like UK's UKRI) prohibit to put page charges in overheads for grants, so I wonder how people are supposed to get the money... To be honest, the natural consequence of this will be that people will stop publishing in MNRAS. There is simply not enough value added in the publication process to justify 2.3k GBP, given that the referees are not payed, the journal is published online only, and the arxiv already provide hosting. Also, this is the case of Royal Astronomical Society (which does a lot of good things: provides grants, fellowships, organizes meetings, gives prizes) of trying to preserve the income stream to fund that. This is wrong, and we should not accept that in my opinion.

planede 4y ago
Even if it eventually gets covered by funding, this is still kind of bad. Who gets to publish is basically decided at funding time, not on merits of a paper.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  It makes more sence for taxpayer to pay for publishing of research, than for each of individually to pay for accessing it. As a general view, I am not sure on the merits of this spesific event. But also, why are commercial entities reviweing scientific papers and deciding merit? Are their interests aligned with mine as a tax payer?
  - g4d 4y ago
    Commercial entities are not reviewing papers, are they? Editors and reviewers are not (usually) employed and are certainly not paid for their work.
    - dual_dingo 4y ago
      It was 10+ years ago, but I once saw the amount of money Springer paid my old boss (chair of a department) for being managing editor of a run of the mill low impact journal. He spend maybe 10h per month on it but was paid 1.5x yearly of what I was earning for a full time job.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
yaxu 4y ago
I disagree, it's ridiculous for publicly-funded research to be published behind paywalls, and open access fees are supported by research councils who mandate open access publication anyway. The point of publishing something in a journal is to have people _more_ able to read it, not less!! It's simply not true that UKRI don't allow you to charge APCs to grants. I've costed it in to my current grant with no problems. They also provide funds to institutions to support open access publication, that academics without grant funding can access. Generally people without funding support e.g. from 'developing countries' are able to publish for free via a fee waiver, as the article suggests. This new policy also means they're actually able to afford to read the research in the publication they're submitting to. If you're arguing that the academic commercial publication model makes no sense and is in desperate need of wide-ranging reform, I agree with that. But I think this is a step in the right direction because at least it makes research accessible.
- tokinonagare 4y ago
  > The point of publishing something in a journal is to have people _more_ able to read it, not less!! There won't be anything to read if most researchers are gatekept out of publishing in the first place. > Generally people without funding support e.g. from 'developing countries' are able to publish for free via a fee waiver, as the article suggests. Money issue is an issue in a lot of countries, not just developing ones. In France research budget are slimmer every year and it's not unusual for researchers to pay things like travel to conferences from their own pocket. Even when the institution is paying, it's often only refunding months after the fact, so researchers have to pay in advance and god forbid they ever lost a paper or else they won't see their money back. And then there is the case I mentioned in other comments like myself who are out the academic system (or tries to enter it but have no support yet) but still having papers they want to publish. I don't want to shell out half or a full month of salary to publish a PDF that will be read by a dozen of person worldwide.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- dsqrt 4y ago
antognini 4y ago
Indeed. Astronomy has two major journals: The Astrophysical Journal and MNRAS. Up until now they complemented each other in their business model. MNRAS had no publication fees, but supported itself with a higher subscription cost. ApJ has publication fees and a lower subscription cost. Papers would require a subscription to read for a longer time on MNRAS than ApJ. I always felt this system was nice because it allowed younger or independent researchers who perhaps didn't have grant money to publish in a top tier journal. But if one did have grant money one could afford to publish in ApJ and see the paper released earlier. But it looks like this system is coming to an end.
cowl 4y ago
That Publishing fee is nothing compared to the cost of the research itself. It's a rounding error and can be easily included in any research funding. Free Access is a clear Win. Any research that can not afford that Fee for a peer Review makes me doubt what other expenses have they eliminated during that research.
- aragilar 4y ago
  There was already free access, it's called arxiv. The value of MNRAS it was free to publish in, so no, not a win in any way.
matheusmoreira 4y ago
> To be honest, the natural consequence of this will be that people will stop publishing in MNRAS. Good. These "publishers" need to die out anyway. The only point of a journal is peer review and they don't pay peer reviewers anyway due to conflicts of interest. People should be able to simply set up a blog and start peer reviewing. No need for this old media whatsoever.

planede 4y ago

Even if it eventually gets covered by funding, this is still kind of bad. Who gets to publish is basically decided at funding time, not on merits of a paper.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
It makes more sence for taxpayer to pay for publishing of research, than for each of individually to pay for accessing it. As a general view, I am not sure on the merits of this spesific event. But also, why are commercial entities reviweing scientific papers and deciding merit? Are their interests aligned with mine as a tax payer?
- g4d 4y ago
  Commercial entities are not reviewing papers, are they? Editors and reviewers are not (usually) employed and are certainly not paid for their work.
  - dual_dingo 4y ago
    It was 10+ years ago, but I once saw the amount of money Springer paid my old boss (chair of a department) for being managing editor of a run of the mill low impact journal. He spend maybe 10h per month on it but was paid 1.5x yearly of what I was earning for a full time job.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

yaxu 4y ago

I disagree, it's ridiculous for publicly-funded research to be published behind paywalls, and open access fees are supported by research councils who mandate open access publication anyway. The point of publishing something in a journal is to have people _more_ able to read it, not less!! It's simply not true that UKRI don't allow you to charge APCs to grants. I've costed it in to my current grant with no problems. They also provide funds to institutions to support open access publication, that academics without grant funding can access. Generally people without funding support e.g. from 'developing countries' are able to publish for free via a fee waiver, as the article suggests. This new policy also means they're actually able to afford to read the research in the publication they're submitting to. If you're arguing that the academic commercial publication model makes no sense and is in desperate need of wide-ranging reform, I agree with that. But I think this is a step in the right direction because at least it makes research accessible.

tokinonagare 4y ago
> The point of publishing something in a journal is to have people _more_ able to read it, not less!! There won't be anything to read if most researchers are gatekept out of publishing in the first place. > Generally people without funding support e.g. from 'developing countries' are able to publish for free via a fee waiver, as the article suggests. Money issue is an issue in a lot of countries, not just developing ones. In France research budget are slimmer every year and it's not unusual for researchers to pay things like travel to conferences from their own pocket. Even when the institution is paying, it's often only refunding months after the fact, so researchers have to pay in advance and god forbid they ever lost a paper or else they won't see their money back. And then there is the case I mentioned in other comments like myself who are out the academic system (or tries to enter it but have no support yet) but still having papers they want to publish. I don't want to shell out half or a full month of salary to publish a PDF that will be read by a dozen of person worldwide.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
dsqrt 4y ago

antognini 4y ago

Indeed. Astronomy has two major journals: The Astrophysical Journal and MNRAS. Up until now they complemented each other in their business model. MNRAS had no publication fees, but supported itself with a higher subscription cost. ApJ has publication fees and a lower subscription cost. Papers would require a subscription to read for a longer time on MNRAS than ApJ. I always felt this system was nice because it allowed younger or independent researchers who perhaps didn't have grant money to publish in a top tier journal. But if one did have grant money one could afford to publish in ApJ and see the paper released earlier. But it looks like this system is coming to an end.

cowl 4y ago

That Publishing fee is nothing compared to the cost of the research itself. It's a rounding error and can be easily included in any research funding. Free Access is a clear Win. Any research that can not afford that Fee for a peer Review makes me doubt what other expenses have they eliminated during that research.

aragilar 4y ago
There was already free access, it's called arxiv. The value of MNRAS it was free to publish in, so no, not a win in any way.

matheusmoreira 4y ago

> To be honest, the natural consequence of this will be that people will stop publishing in MNRAS. Good. These "publishers" need to die out anyway. The only point of a journal is peer review and they don't pay peer reviewers anyway due to conflicts of interest. People should be able to simply set up a blog and start peer reviewing. No need for this old media whatsoever.