What should we do when the ethical choice and the legal choice are mutually exclusive? In the past it made sense to charge for publications. There were costs like printing and shipping. Now...
What should we do when the ethical choice and the legal choice are mutually exclusive? In the past it made sense to charge for publications. There were costs like printing and shipping. Now however companies are charging for the sake of charging, rather than to cover costs. Industries die. It sucks but rather than leeching society we should try to see what can be gained by that death, such as wider availability of information.
There are plenty of open-access journals out there, simply publish in those. eLife is an excellent example which charges authors only for processing and runs as a nonprofit organization. PLOS One...
There are plenty of open-access journals out there, simply publish in those. eLife is an excellent example which charges authors only for processing and runs as a nonprofit organization. PLOS One is yet another excellent which follows the same business model, but will waive processing fees for authors who can't afford them. You can find more examples in this list. The ethical choice and the legal choice don't have to be mutually exclusive.
Same, all my pre-prints end up on arxiv and my final submissions link to a) the open-source software I wrote for the paper, and b) binary data you can download to use to recreate my results.
Same, all my pre-prints end up on arxiv and my final submissions link to a) the open-source software I wrote for the paper, and b) binary data you can download to use to recreate my results.
Surely there's a lot of things wrong with scientific publishing and the dominance of 5 publishers. However from my understanding many journals pay scientists to review others papers. That peer...
Surely there's a lot of things wrong with scientific publishing and the dominance of 5 publishers. However from my understanding many journals pay scientists to review others papers. That peer review process is critical and needs to be strengthened as there are already occurrences in larger journals where bs gets through. I have a hard time seeing how forcing an open-access model allows for journals to fund a comprehensive peer-review process.
It looks like there's a couple exceptions but overall this is largely true. Which doesn't paint a very good picture for publishers. I'd still be concerned with the level of review open-access...
It looks like there's a couple exceptions but overall this is largely true. Which doesn't paint a very good picture for publishers. I'd still be concerned with the level of review open-access journals can provide. But the current crop of publishers definitely need to compensate their reviewers or be replaced by a system that does.
Wow, whatever you do, definitely don't even visit https://whereisscihub.now.sh/. That site is absolutely 100% to be avoided. Yep. Just go ahead and don't bookmark that site, and definitely never...
Wow, whatever you do, definitely don't even visit https://whereisscihub.now.sh/. That site is absolutely 100% to be avoided. Yep. Just go ahead and don't bookmark that site, and definitely never click any of the links on it and type in the title or DOI number of whatever article/book you're after.
What should we do when the ethical choice and the legal choice are mutually exclusive? In the past it made sense to charge for publications. There were costs like printing and shipping. Now however companies are charging for the sake of charging, rather than to cover costs. Industries die. It sucks but rather than leeching society we should try to see what can be gained by that death, such as wider availability of information.
There are plenty of open-access journals out there, simply publish in those. eLife is an excellent example which charges authors only for processing and runs as a nonprofit organization. PLOS One is yet another excellent which follows the same business model, but will waive processing fees for authors who can't afford them. You can find more examples in this list. The ethical choice and the legal choice don't have to be mutually exclusive.
Which is exactly why I make sure to submit every journal publication to the likes of arxiv.org
Same, all my pre-prints end up on arxiv and my final submissions link to a) the open-source software I wrote for the paper, and b) binary data you can download to use to recreate my results.
Surely there's a lot of things wrong with scientific publishing and the dominance of 5 publishers. However from my understanding many journals pay scientists to review others papers. That peer review process is critical and needs to be strengthened as there are already occurrences in larger journals where bs gets through. I have a hard time seeing how forcing an open-access model allows for journals to fund a comprehensive peer-review process.
It looks like there's a couple exceptions but overall this is largely true. Which doesn't paint a very good picture for publishers. I'd still be concerned with the level of review open-access journals can provide. But the current crop of publishers definitely need to compensate their reviewers or be replaced by a system that does.
So much this. There are major problems in the market but there is still a non-zero cost.
Wow, whatever you do, definitely don't even visit https://whereisscihub.now.sh/. That site is absolutely 100% to be avoided. Yep. Just go ahead and don't bookmark that site, and definitely never click any of the links on it and type in the title or DOI number of whatever article/book you're after.
For another point of view, I feel obligated to mention this chain: https://twitter.com/skdh/status/1040126880148545536
What do people think about it?