| ▲ | forgotpwd16 a day ago | |
>PLoS [...] At low costs of $2k~$3k per publication[0]. Elsevier closed-access journals will charge you $0 to publish your paper. >Elsevier makes over $3 billion dollars with the closed publication model. Elsevier is also[1] moving to APC for their journals because is better business. >The Institutions often do not supply access to the general public despite the papers being produced with public money Journals (usually) forbid you of sharing the published (supposedly edited) version of a paper. You're allowed to share the pre-published draft (see arXiv). Institutions could (and some indeed do) supply those drafts on their own. >Paying the cost upfront from the grant increases the availability to the public. At the expense of making research more expensive and hence more exclusive. It's money rather quality that matters now. Thus it isn't unsurprising that Frontiers & MDPI, two very known open-access proponent publishers, are also very known to publishing garbage. It's ironic that once was said that any journal asking you for money to publish your paper is predatory, yet nowadays somehow this is considered best practice. [0]: https://plos.org/fees/ [1]: https://www.elsevier.com/open-access | ||
| ▲ | strangattractor a day ago | parent | next [-] | |
Better busness or are their customers demanding it? PLoS is a Non-Profit - feel free to look up how much they make. I believe it is public record. If researchers cannot pay the APC then PLoS often reduces the fee. Also - half of that grant money is used by the Institution as administrative overhead. An part of that overhead is paying Elsevier for journal access. If you want to decrease the cost of research that may be a better place to start. I agree that volume often tends to result in garbage but the review is supposed to lessen that. Again that garbage did get funded some how. I am not pushing PLoS - they are simply a publisher I am familiar with that uses this model. | ||
| ▲ | strangattractor a day ago | parent | prev [-] | |
One last post. The garbage thing is really interesting. I'm going to propose another reason for garbage is Academia's reliance on publication as the primary means for giving promotions and judging peoples work. This leads to all kinds of disfunction. Was it Nobel Prize Winner Peter Higgs that said his University wanted to fire him because he didn't publish frequently enough? | ||