Headlines By Email
Get LISNews via email! Enter Your Email Address:
Navigation
User login
Recent comments
- Nice analysis 1 month 2 weeks ago
- Justifying the practice... 2 months 1 day ago
- Details 2 months 3 weeks ago
- Congrats on 20 years. 3 months 1 week ago
- Happy Brithday 3 months 1 week ago
- Happy birthday, LISNews! 3 months 2 weeks ago
- chapter 1-8 claims 10 months 1 week ago
- Not a novella? 1 year 1 week ago
- women of a certain age (sounds like a criticism right there...) 1 year 8 months ago
- Reading as a punishment 1 year 10 months ago
Recent blog posts
- Appreciating the ‘powerful good’ of the public library
- New Domain, New Blog
- A.I. as virtual research mediators
- Fed Life Working Without Pay
- Dismantling Utopia: How Information Ended the Soviet Union
- Cites & Insights December 2018 (18:9) available
- Cites & Insights 18:7 (October 2018) available
- Cites & Insights 18:6 (September 2018) available
- Apparently Alex Jones isn't totally silenced
- Cites & Insights 18.5 (August 2018) available
Nice ideas :)
What I think a lot of people don't realise is the actual cost of getting scientific work published. There are pages charges, figure charges, colour charges and of course if you have to do it, Open Access charges. Add to that the time and effort spend on peer review and maybe even editorial work on journals themselves.
If people realised how much money was effectively being given to private companies (such as Elsevier, Springer etc) just to get work published they'd be shocked and think that a lot of money was being wasted.
Surely scientists should be getting paid for filling the publishers titles?
The NIH has a 12 month mandate which is good, but in the UK the equivalent body (Research Councils) have a mandate of 6 months. So we are having to pay $3000+ a paper just to have it available to the public. Why? Open Access has led to another layer of cost to the taxpayer, not reduced it. And it's added another administrative task to the people overseeing the syste, that wasn't there before.