You must log in or register to comment.
and don’t use Sci-hub people. I am warning ⚠️ you so you can avoid it 🫡
Annas Archives
o7
dont ever use this, it has almost everything
but wait…
where meme part ?
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.
Didn’t you know? Screenshots of social media posts are memes now 🙃
!politicalmemes@lemmy.world suffers from this but it’s 1000% worse there.
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.
Don’t give them ideas for free.
Just like the Olympics. The companies are vampire squids.
That’s unfair to both vampires and squids
vampire squid makes them sound cute, they are literally the scum of the earth: They are leeching billions from what is normally a tax funded sector and on the side heavily polarising publishing and access to science in favor of rich countries.
Yeah they are more like Humboldt squid. They live below most things, in the dark, and surface when it is dark. They will eat others, of their own kind, if they are injured, or otherwise inhibited, or because their group isn’t finding adequate feeding fast enough.
I thought you were a Biologist and were going on an actual rant about actual vampire squids lol
no I just imagined a small squid with tiny fangs
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.
Just here to say fuck Elsevier.
Or, publish to PLOS ONE, the open-access science journal.
There are many other open-access journals, for example these: https://freejournals.org/. But yes, open-access is the way.
Thank you for these extra options. Great link.
Another one, Frontiers:
A Creative-Commons mega-journal that I did not know about. Thanks!
Reviewers and writers actually do get a stipend, but it’s a token amount like 200 bucks a year. This industry is the most ass backward incentive structure we could possibly create, the only reason writers would provide articles to a journal is literally for the clout.
Really? I’ve reviewed and published a good chunk of papers and never received any financial compensation.
Well, you received a token amount of 0 bucks an eternity.
I’ve never gotten a stipend or heard of someone getting a stipend for publishing or reviewing manuscripts. The only thing I’ve been offered is access to the journal.
Depends on the journal I guess, my wife worked at multiple publishers and there’s normally an insultingly small stipend for the editorial board members and writers
They all got bought up by venture capitalists like a decade or more more ago, and this is the result.
They were already backward, but now they are backward, ruthless about cost cutting, and care about nothing but profits.
I’ve heard of some journals promising to pay their reviewers Amazon gift cards which they never end up sending out
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.
And they wonder why…
TIL: In the PotC universe, The legs of the pier are
noclipunderwater.
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.
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
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.
Why are we looking at revenue? We don’t know the operating costs. What are the profit margins?
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.
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?
In part it’s prestige, which for some might matter for promotion purposes, and at least personally I’m more like to cite journals for which I know I trust their judgement in peer review and submission acceptance. There are predatory publishers which abuse the open access concept to make money, and if I’m reviewing literature I don’t want to have to also research if a journal can be trusted (unless of course the publication I want to include is novel or especially worthwhile).
Also, in many contexts open access requires payment by the authors; this may be fine if an author is in a large grant-funded lab or at an institution willing to fund the open access fee but for many of us non-research-track folks it’s kind of a deal breaker.
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
I did get paid for reviewing for a Springer journal though. Next to nothing, but it’s not zero.
That’s money better spent on shutting down libraries.
