Good. Let the journals evolve or burn, the days when they were a necessary part of the publication process ended once we all had internet access. Perhaps they could refocus on actually vetting...
Good. Let the journals evolve or burn, the days when they were a necessary part of the publication process ended once we all had internet access. Perhaps they could refocus on actually vetting their articles to the highest standards and drop the politics and payola.
I'll be interested to see what "pay to publish in OA" cap is put in place, and how journals respond. I used to work at a well-regarded major academic publisher (nominally a nonprofit!), and have...
I'll be interested to see what "pay to publish in OA" cap is put in place, and how journals respond.
I used to work at a well-regarded major academic publisher (nominally a nonprofit!), and have been pretty depressed by recent changes. There's been a massive push over the last 18 months or so to keep submitted manuscripts in-house. That is, rather than rejecting them outright, a paper which is not fit for a top-tier journal can only be transferred to another journal by the same publisher. Which itself is pretty borderline, but some work should just be rejected outright so that the author can chart their own path. Well, the publisher thought of that -- they started a pay-to-publish online journal (still peer-reviewed) as a "here's everything else" bucket. Rather than being rejected from top-tier free-to-publish peer-reviewed journals, bad work now winds its way through the system down to the $2000-to-publish thing (you can get credits by reviewing work at higher tier journals, which also seems borderline).
Makes me wonder if that change was made to subsidize lower fees if the higher tier journals are forced to go open-access and pay-to-publish.
Good. Let the journals evolve or burn, the days when they were a necessary part of the publication process ended once we all had internet access. Perhaps they could refocus on actually vetting their articles to the highest standards and drop the politics and payola.
I'll be interested to see what "pay to publish in OA" cap is put in place, and how journals respond.
I used to work at a well-regarded major academic publisher (nominally a nonprofit!), and have been pretty depressed by recent changes. There's been a massive push over the last 18 months or so to keep submitted manuscripts in-house. That is, rather than rejecting them outright, a paper which is not fit for a top-tier journal can only be transferred to another journal by the same publisher. Which itself is pretty borderline, but some work should just be rejected outright so that the author can chart their own path. Well, the publisher thought of that -- they started a pay-to-publish online journal (still peer-reviewed) as a "here's everything else" bucket. Rather than being rejected from top-tier free-to-publish peer-reviewed journals, bad work now winds its way through the system down to the $2000-to-publish thing (you can get credits by reviewing work at higher tier journals, which also seems borderline).
Makes me wonder if that change was made to subsidize lower fees if the higher tier journals are forced to go open-access and pay-to-publish.
A very welcome decision! I wonder how much leverage journals have now that Sci-Hub is gaining awareness among academics and laymen alike.