- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Remember folks, if you pirate scientific papers you’re stealing from the hard working…wait a minute…
You wouldn’t download a car
I would, actually
Why stop at one?
I’d 3D print that shit so hard on my shitty little Ender.
Lol you wouldn’t download knowledge.
but wait…
where meme part ?
It’s a meme because it first makes you laugh, and then it makes you think.
Didn’t you know? Screenshots of social media posts are memes now 🙃
[email protected] suffers from this but it’s 1000% worse there.
Internet memes come from the original concept of memes as an element of culture passed on from person to person.
From Wikipedia’s “internet meme” article.
I heard that, you are legally allowed to Email the Academic Authors, and request said articles, which they are allowed to provide for free.
Absolutely. Plus scientists love when people want to actually read their work so you make their day too!
Okay, but what are the profits? That’s what actually matters here.
I’ve only ever published in open access journals (partially because I’ve only got 3 papers out, but also out of preference) is it just prestige that makes people go with pay-to-view journals? or are there other factors?
deleted by creator
Depends strongly on the community. Every sub discipline has its own standards of respectability. Publishing outside of those constraints can cause articles to be ignored.
that makes a lot of sense! I’m very grateful to be part of an academic community that seems to value open access, as well of part of a university that pays for access and submission to most of the journals I need to use
As much as I’m against parasitic practices, I wonder how the inevitable corruption of money would (further) skew research if academia was well paid for their papers.
We’re not saying pay the authors a bunch, we’re saying make the papers free to read. Or at least don’t charge authors and readers both, while keeping all the money for yourself.
And I wonder how, not having the pressure to “succeed” research (to gain further grants), would increase the quality of said research.
I quit a physics phd path just under a decade ago because my experimental results were turning up negative and the uni I was at pushed me to doctor my results so we would keep getting funded. I also wonder about this
Why are we looking at revenue? We don’t know the operating costs. What are the profit margins?
Alright but look at how much they pay the authors. What other business pays ZERO dollars for their core product?
None, but science isn’t a business. Treating it so creates perverse incentives where an articles is reviewed by merit of its financial gain and not its content. Some people already do this by prestige alone, but adding money to the mix won’t improve this imo
So it’s acceptable for Elselvier et al to milk academics blind? At the minimum, authors should not be charged.
No, but ideally all publishers should operate not-for-profit, and yep submission for open access should not cost ridiculous fees.
According to Wikipedia, in 2022 Elsevier’s revenue was 2.909 billion pounds and their net income was 2.021 billion pounds.
Not going to bother looking up the rest.
There’s a much more accurate stat… and it’s disgusting
Before Roblox there was this…
NGL if I was a college professor in this situation I’d be pirating my own work fuck these guys
I do it all the time. Something something sci-hub. If you ask, the authors will almost always share a preprint.
Very frequently you can email the author of the paper and they will be super happy to send you a copy.
This isn’t a meme, it’s a crime
There are literally tens of thousands of people in academia who could build a transparent, open-source, non-profit publishing system of their own.
Why don’t they?
Corruption - at the highest level.
Well I don’t know about “highest” level.
It’s in some ways worse than that. it’s institutional corruption and collusion across all levels of power within institutions. Not having access to pear review, journals, the gravitas, the funding sources:it creates a monopoly of power for all players in the system where they aren’t benefited by opening up access
I don’t know about other fields, but we did do this for AI. It’s all community-run, papers are freely available for everyone to read, and the cost of submission in a peer-reviewed venue is to review other papers. The publishers don’t actually provide anything of value except name recognition and being “reputable”, which they maintain through momentum.
Oh, could you share some links?
Links to what?
Sorry, I might have misunderstood - I thought there would be some journals employing that “review to submit” system you mentioned.
Ah, yes. I just wasn’t clear on whether you wanted to know more about the publication venues or about the value of publishers or something else.
In AI, we normally publish in conferences rather than journals. Some of the big ones are
There is a new journal I know of (TMLR) that’s becoming a bit more popular in these circles, but I believe they rely solely on volunteers to review rather than asking those who submit papers.
Thanks, I will be looking into this!
There is a transitioning happening but progress churns slowly. I like to compare it to getting out of an abusive relationship.
https://sparcopen.org/our-work/big-deal-knowledge-base/unbundling-profiles/mit-libraries/
It’s happening in Germany as well. Universities are banding together to negotiate better deals with publishers - some subscriptions haven’t been renewed when the publishers weren’t forthcoming. It’s not a solution (that would be the wide establishment of independent, self organized/hosted Open Access journals - using Open Journal Systems for example) but it’s a start.
The big issue is that the individuals who lead these institutions are those who are successful with the status quo; perhaps some recognize the importance of changing it but I perceive that most would be unwilling to dismantle a system that worked well for them.
Academic Authors: $0
FAKE NEWS
This should be in the negatives. We have to pay to get papers published in these traditional journals.
And sometimes open access costs money for the author too.
Don’t forget the university libraries. Yup, researchers are paid by the university, those researchers pay the publishers to place their articles, the peer reviewers are also paid by the university. And then the university has to shell out money to the publishers, so the articles can be accessed.
researchers are paid by the university
Not necessarily. A lot are paid by external research grants.
I must admit what I wrote was simplified.
If you take into account that a lot of research grants are financed by tax money though…
New textbooks have disappearing ink that only lasts, about one semester, until a month before finals, and then in that month they trigger dynamic pricing increases due to a stronger than typical demand…
Don’t give them ideas for free.
Don’t give them ideas.
That seems like a very lucrative market to interrupt
I too want to open a business where both customers and suppliers pay me. Do you know any more gullible sectors? Academics are pretty extorted already it seems.
Real estate seems to be a popular place for seemingly unnecessary middlemen.
deleted by creator
I did get paid for reviewing for a Springer journal though. Next to nothing, but it’s not zero.
