8 ms·
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.
by 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 agoIt 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 agoCommercial 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 agoIt 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.