4 ms·

My reading of this press release is that they are just removing the 12 month embargo period before the already mandated free-access (untypeset) versions of gran

My reading of this press release is that they are just removing the 12 month embargo period before the already mandated free-access (untypeset) versions of grant-supported manuscripts can go on pubmed central. The prior policy of a 12 month embargo period allowed publishers to have a small value add over the free version. This value add justifies subscription fees which support, among other things, infrastructure necessary to support peer review and possibly some in-house staff scientific editing and review. I do wonder whether it is worth it to make all papers available immediately if indirectly may make peer review even less supported than it is now.

zeckalpha 1y ago
Peer review need not be synchronous.
dbcooper 1y ago
Peer review is not supported by publishers. Many editors are unpaid too.
- riskassessment 1y ago
  I specifically said journals subscription fees support peer review infrastructure. Yes peer reviewers are unpaid but peer review also would not exist in anything resembling its current form in the absence of journal staff moving papers through the peer review system. Associate/deputy editors are unpaid but the main editor of the journal is often paid and does provide scientific oversight and review, particularly at the margin of acceptance/rejection. The main editor of course is also responsible for recruiting associate editors who in turn are responsible for finding appropriate peer reviewers, so having a good editor who can recruit and maintain quality deputy/associate editors is key. Some journals even have staff scientific reviewers which act as a check on the occasional oversights of unpaid peer review.
  - dbcooper 1y ago
    The "infrastructure" is terrible software called Editorial Manager. It doesn't have any document annotation or collaboration features. It merely allows documents to be uploaded and downloaded, and is a pain to work with. The peer review process is almost entirely coordinated by unpaid associate editors. They make initial manuscript assessments, solicit reviewers, and moderate the review and response process. "journal staff moving papers through the peer review system" may happen at a small number of prestige journals such as Advanced Materials, but for most Q1 journals it is all volunteer work. That is the business model that makes companies like Elsevier billions.
    - riskassessment 1y ago
      Infrastucture is not the same as software. I was mostly referring to the human infrastructure (although editorialmanager is not free and until someone makes an open source alternative the supscription fees do support that license). And I would argue that the existence of a small number of prestige journals with scientific staff makes the entire system worth it, even if it means we have to deal with the existence of Elsevier and the like.
      - sterlind 1y ago
        prestige journals are good for careers, but are they good for science? I don't think I've ever read a CS or math paper in Nature or Science that's blown me away. all the classics are on arxiv.
        riskassessment 1y ago
        The value of good editorial staff may very well be less important in some fields. In the biomedical field subject-matter expertise still matters a lot in terms of discerning good research from seemingly good research. Which also means that prestige journals won't make research any more groundbreaking but if functioning properly should enrich for papers that are less likely to be junk science. I'd also argue that generic journals like Nature and Science are so unfocused that their staff probably provides little to no additional expertise and they rely entirely on peer review. Whereas staff at more specialized journals with lower but still very respectable impact factors are probably doing more informed work to select for quality science.
acomjean 1y ago
We had some papers published under NIH grants at my last job. Our papers went public right away. Although the publishers charged the lab an extra fee because of free requirement. As others pointed out reviewers often aren't compensated. Pubmed is an amazing resource. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ The annotate a lot of the papers with this “Mesh” terms, which is a controlled vocabulary used to help index all those papers. They update with new annotations daily. https://www.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/meshhome.html https://www.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/meshhome.html
permo-w 1y ago
your reading is incorrect. they're not announcing the removal of the 12 month embargo, they're moving it forward to the 1st of July the subscription fees are a parasitic joke in the first place. science should be free, now and forever, and peer review is generally done on a voluntary basis anyway
- riskassessment 1y ago
  Moving forward the removal of the embargo. But my point is that access to federally funded science was free prior to anyone coming up with a plan to remove the embargo. You just needed to wait up to a year before a paper was put on pubmed central. This removal of the embargo is hardly a meaningful change in terms of access but one that erodes the institutions that ensure peer review happens. It is easy to say peer review is largely based on volunteers, but if journals ceased to exist tomorrow I doubt anyone here would volunteer to do the task of what the journals do now. At least you can put peer reviewer on your academic CV. The paid journal staff do much less glamorous work but still serve a role in keeping peer review running.
  - permo-w 1y ago
    the current journal system works like this: - the govt (i.e. taxpayers) and universities pay for research to be done - once the research is done, the universities pay journals to review and publish their work - the journals then get academics to review the work - the journals do not pay the reviewers for this - the journals then charge exorbitant fees for the universities and members of the public to view the work that they as a collective paid for - from which exactly none of those fees go back to the original creators or funders of the research -- so in conclusion, the journals get paid from both sides, supplier and consumer, at no point paying anything to the funders or creators of their product, except perhaps in tax. their sole costs are administrative, and maybe some printing, if they even still bother to do that these institutions deserve to die. they are cancerous parasites leeching the veins of science, extracting money at every opportunity, taking funding from research, all for the sake of a service that can largely be boiled down to prestige for a price >if journals ceased to exist tomorrow I doubt anyone here would volunteer to do the task of what the journals do now this simply isn't true. there is a growing movement where academics do this very thing, founding their own fairer journals that aren't owned by Elsevier

zeckalpha 1y ago

Peer review need not be synchronous.

dbcooper 1y ago

Peer review is not supported by publishers. Many editors are unpaid too.

riskassessment 1y ago
I specifically said journals subscription fees support peer review infrastructure. Yes peer reviewers are unpaid but peer review also would not exist in anything resembling its current form in the absence of journal staff moving papers through the peer review system. Associate/deputy editors are unpaid but the main editor of the journal is often paid and does provide scientific oversight and review, particularly at the margin of acceptance/rejection. The main editor of course is also responsible for recruiting associate editors who in turn are responsible for finding appropriate peer reviewers, so having a good editor who can recruit and maintain quality deputy/associate editors is key. Some journals even have staff scientific reviewers which act as a check on the occasional oversights of unpaid peer review.
- dbcooper 1y ago
  The "infrastructure" is terrible software called Editorial Manager. It doesn't have any document annotation or collaboration features. It merely allows documents to be uploaded and downloaded, and is a pain to work with. The peer review process is almost entirely coordinated by unpaid associate editors. They make initial manuscript assessments, solicit reviewers, and moderate the review and response process. "journal staff moving papers through the peer review system" may happen at a small number of prestige journals such as Advanced Materials, but for most Q1 journals it is all volunteer work. That is the business model that makes companies like Elsevier billions.
  - riskassessment 1y ago
    Infrastucture is not the same as software. I was mostly referring to the human infrastructure (although editorialmanager is not free and until someone makes an open source alternative the supscription fees do support that license). And I would argue that the existence of a small number of prestige journals with scientific staff makes the entire system worth it, even if it means we have to deal with the existence of Elsevier and the like.
    - sterlind 1y ago
      prestige journals are good for careers, but are they good for science? I don't think I've ever read a CS or math paper in Nature or Science that's blown me away. all the classics are on arxiv.
      - riskassessment 1y ago
        The value of good editorial staff may very well be less important in some fields. In the biomedical field subject-matter expertise still matters a lot in terms of discerning good research from seemingly good research. Which also means that prestige journals won't make research any more groundbreaking but if functioning properly should enrich for papers that are less likely to be junk science. I'd also argue that generic journals like Nature and Science are so unfocused that their staff probably provides little to no additional expertise and they rely entirely on peer review. Whereas staff at more specialized journals with lower but still very respectable impact factors are probably doing more informed work to select for quality science.

acomjean 1y ago

We had some papers published under NIH grants at my last job. Our papers went public right away. Although the publishers charged the lab an extra fee because of free requirement. As others pointed out reviewers often aren't compensated. Pubmed is an amazing resource. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ The annotate a lot of the papers with this “Mesh” terms, which is a controlled vocabulary used to help index all those papers. They update with new annotations daily. https://www.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/meshhome.html https://www.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/meshhome.html

permo-w 1y ago

your reading is incorrect. they're not announcing the removal of the 12 month embargo, they're moving it forward to the 1st of July the subscription fees are a parasitic joke in the first place. science should be free, now and forever, and peer review is generally done on a voluntary basis anyway

riskassessment 1y ago
Moving forward the removal of the embargo. But my point is that access to federally funded science was free prior to anyone coming up with a plan to remove the embargo. You just needed to wait up to a year before a paper was put on pubmed central. This removal of the embargo is hardly a meaningful change in terms of access but one that erodes the institutions that ensure peer review happens. It is easy to say peer review is largely based on volunteers, but if journals ceased to exist tomorrow I doubt anyone here would volunteer to do the task of what the journals do now. At least you can put peer reviewer on your academic CV. The paid journal staff do much less glamorous work but still serve a role in keeping peer review running.
- permo-w 1y ago
  the current journal system works like this: - the govt (i.e. taxpayers) and universities pay for research to be done - once the research is done, the universities pay journals to review and publish their work - the journals then get academics to review the work - the journals do not pay the reviewers for this - the journals then charge exorbitant fees for the universities and members of the public to view the work that they as a collective paid for - from which exactly none of those fees go back to the original creators or funders of the research -- so in conclusion, the journals get paid from both sides, supplier and consumer, at no point paying anything to the funders or creators of their product, except perhaps in tax. their sole costs are administrative, and maybe some printing, if they even still bother to do that these institutions deserve to die. they are cancerous parasites leeching the veins of science, extracting money at every opportunity, taking funding from research, all for the sake of a service that can largely be boiled down to prestige for a price >if journals ceased to exist tomorrow I doubt anyone here would volunteer to do the task of what the journals do now this simply isn't true. there is a growing movement where academics do this very thing, founding their own fairer journals that aren't owned by Elsevier