rmonjay t1_iw3abiw wrote
Reply to comment by JUST_PM_ME_SMT in Chinese scientist develop new method of rare earth mining that is more effective and uses much less toxic chemicals by mutherhrg
The authors pay to have them “Open Access” (i.e., not behind the paywall). Since this article is not free, these authors did not pay for it to be Open Access.
It sure is greedy for a publication to want to pay its bills and salaries and not just operate as a charity. /s
JUST_PM_ME_SMT t1_iw3e41f wrote
It's not just for open access papers that researchers need to pay to these publishing companies. They call it article processing charges. Sure these publishing companies need money to exist, but the total amount they get from both readers and writers is wayy above the needed maintenance fees especially since lots of publishing houses dont have huge physical hq anymore. So it makes you think, the writers don't get paid, the peer reviewers don't get paid, so where does all the money goes?
rmonjay t1_iw3grd1 wrote
The amount that Nature, one of the premier science publications, receives in revenue is more than the cost of publishing it. They have dozens of offices and more than 800 staff around the world. They also publish more than 150 other, much less profitable (or even not profitable) academic journals.
If you think that is representative of academic publishing in general, than I suggest you look a bit more closely. Having generally accepted academic journals is a societal benefit. If the schools wanted to publish these papers, like they do in other disciplines, that could be an alternative. However, as long there is no viable alternative, then someone has to pay to collate this information and make it generally accessible.
JUST_PM_ME_SMT t1_iw3hwgg wrote
Hmm I guess that Nature IS more well known than arxiv by the general public so I guess there are merits for paid publishers if just to make average Joe more interested in science
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments