5 ms·
> So, other than derision, accusations of naked emperors, and a variation of "didn't used to be like that", what actually is your problem with that model? The
by lultimouomo 11y ago
> So, other than derision, accusations of naked emperors, and a variation of "didn't used to be like that", what actually is your problem with that model?
The fact that the interest of the journal is now naturally aligned with that of the writer, instead of with that of the reader.
This makes it very useful for the writer, which pays[0], publishes and so gets to live another year having his grant renewed; it also makes it quite useless for the reader, which cannot count on a seriously curated publication.
[0] "Pays" meaning "diverts part of his funding allowance"
- capnrefsmmat 11y agoI don't know if that's true. "Readers" currently means "research libraries", who act on behalf of the scientists doing the research, so shift isn't so great. Additionally, open access journals still must maintain an image of prestige and quality -- authors want to publish in the most prestigious possible journal. There is incentive for journals to compete on quality even when paid by authors. In any case, I think the role of journals as gatekeepers for quality is overstated (peer reviewers and editors generally do a bad job assessing article quality), and as science shifts to alternative forms of peer review and publication, journals will matter less.
- sago 11y ago> The fact that the interest of the journal is now naturally aligned with that of the writer, instead of with that of the reader. Thank you. Good observation. I didn't get that from your original comment.