3 ms·

There are very cheap arXiv overlay journals where the processing fee is about $10 per submission.[1] And that’s with a for profit entity providing the platform.

by oefrha 2y ago

There are very cheap arXiv overlay journals where the processing fee is about $10 per submission.[1] And that’s with a for profit entity providing the platform. Reviewing is already unpaid, editing is often unpaid even with traditional journals. Your “journals die as a result” assumption is faulty. Not to mention for quite a few fields you can already find every remotely worthwhile paper on arXiv. Those fields didn’t collapse. [1] https://gowers.wordpress.com/2015/09/10/discrete-analysis-an-arxiv-overlay-journal/ https://gowers.wordpress.com/2015/09/10/discrete-analysis-an...

bruce511 2y ago
so, given that all scientists and all fields have not immediately adopted this journal, can you elaborate on why some have chosen to not take this approach? By understanding their reasoning it's perhaps possible to understand what benefits are missing from this model? If this cheap publishing approach is better for grant providers, why do they in turn not place more weight on previous papers published this way. Presumably if they "prioritised researchers who do this" they would driver behaviour - no law required? Is big-journal leaning on them?
- oefrha 2y ago
  Inertia and prisoner’s dilemma. If an entire field decided unanimously that all existing editorial boards of for-profit journals will resign and form a corresponding Free<OldJournal> overnight and somehow with an inherited impact factor, then everyone except the leeches in for-profit publishing wins. But that’s an impossible ask. Right now, even when an entire editorial board resigns and starts over, the new journal needs to build reputation from scratch, and anyone submitting work (that qualifies for leading journals) to the blank slate instead of leading journals is committing career self-sabotage in a cutthroat environment. (And the publisher can hire a new board to keep the name going, the number of people willing to sit on the board for prestige is proportional to the journal’s prestige.) That leaves tenured folks who don’t need to worry about climbing the ladder, but they tend to have younger coauthors too. That really leaves tenured profs flying solo or collaborating with each other, and who’s fed up enough to do something about it even though they probably won’t have the network effect for a long time, if ever. It’s no coincidence that I linked to a Fields medalist (mathematician). The next best thing without legislation is publishing preprints to open platforms while leaving the money sucking journals intact. Which has indeed happened in every field I’m familiar with, no idea what’s holding up the others, it’s not like any academic is living on royalties from papers. Inertia perhaps, and negotiation power? And legislation may actually make a difference here, but hey, politicians don’t typically mess with big money.

by oefrha 2y ago

bruce511 2y ago

so, given that all scientists and all fields have not immediately adopted this journal, can you elaborate on why some have chosen to not take this approach? By understanding their reasoning it's perhaps possible to understand what benefits are missing from this model? If this cheap publishing approach is better for grant providers, why do they in turn not place more weight on previous papers published this way. Presumably if they "prioritised researchers who do this" they would driver behaviour - no law required? Is big-journal leaning on them?

oefrha 2y ago
Inertia and prisoner’s dilemma. If an entire field decided unanimously that all existing editorial boards of for-profit journals will resign and form a corresponding Free<OldJournal> overnight and somehow with an inherited impact factor, then everyone except the leeches in for-profit publishing wins. But that’s an impossible ask. Right now, even when an entire editorial board resigns and starts over, the new journal needs to build reputation from scratch, and anyone submitting work (that qualifies for leading journals) to the blank slate instead of leading journals is committing career self-sabotage in a cutthroat environment. (And the publisher can hire a new board to keep the name going, the number of people willing to sit on the board for prestige is proportional to the journal’s prestige.) That leaves tenured folks who don’t need to worry about climbing the ladder, but they tend to have younger coauthors too. That really leaves tenured profs flying solo or collaborating with each other, and who’s fed up enough to do something about it even though they probably won’t have the network effect for a long time, if ever. It’s no coincidence that I linked to a Fields medalist (mathematician). The next best thing without legislation is publishing preprints to open platforms while leaving the money sucking journals intact. Which has indeed happened in every field I’m familiar with, no idea what’s holding up the others, it’s not like any academic is living on royalties from papers. Inertia perhaps, and negotiation power? And legislation may actually make a difference here, but hey, politicians don’t typically mess with big money.