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
When a publisher is for-profit
They are basically getting free content. Not to mention free peer review and maybe even free editorial work from contributing scientists.
If they then charge for Open Access they are getting everything for free, plus making even more on top.
Yes of course they have costs, but the content itself is free, and there is no profit-sharing with the authors after the fact. They have nothing to moan about while that is still the case. Maybe if scientists and/or their funders started charging publishers for providing their content they'd have a point. But they don't.