Flavio Frohlich
  • Home
  • Contact
  • Thoughts
  • Book
  • IN THE NEWS
  • ABOUT
  • Speaker

3/6/2018

Shall we?

2 Comments

Read Now
 
I would like to ask your opinion on something that has fermented in my mind for a long time. What I present to you today are not my own ideas but something that has been inspired by numerous people over the last few years who have engaged in conversations about the topic of scientific publishing. Too many to list to give fair credit but you know who you are. Thank you for all you do for the science community!

I am getting truly fed up with commercial scientific publishing. It just feels so wrong that the tax payer enables our research and once it is done (and has passed peer review), we are asked to pay again for publication and to give ownership away at the same time (copyright). Even worse, the science is then hidden away from the tax payer behind a paywall. What adds to that is how many hours we are spending on additional free work for the publishers by reviewing papers. Now, if academic publishers were struggling to keep the lights on, I would perhaps understand. But hey, they are doing financially really well! Yes, margins are close to 40% in this business!

I think it may be the time to get organized and agree on what on a manifesto along the following lines.

(1) I will not review papers for for-profit publishers unless I am fairly paid for my work. An initial review costs $200 and a re-review costs $100.

(2) I will not submit my papers to journals of for-profit publishers. Instead, I will favor journals by our scientific societies and other not-for-profit groups who fully support open science.

(3) I will not judge scientists (promotion, grants, etc) by the fancy names of the for-profit journals they have published in, but rather by their actual science. No more "Great scientist, she published 3 papers in XYZ the last year. What a smart person."!


What are your thoughts - agree/disagree? Are you ready to sign this? Just wondering.

Thanks,

Flavio

Share

2 Comments
Axel Hutt
3/30/2018 09:24:28 am

Hi,

in principle I am with you, but I understand that there is a certain type of for-profit publisher that is more fair than others. This one requests an article fee but provides open access. So you pay for the editorial service (webpage, review process guidance etc.). Such a system is provided, e.g., by Frontiers.

Other publishing houses are much worse, such as Elsevier

Concerning review payment, I fully agree with you. Is there any movement in this direction ? Who should pay reviewers ? Authors ?

Bye for the moment.

Axel

Reply
Flavio Frohlich
3/30/2018 09:36:43 am

Dear Axel:

Thanks for your thoughts - you bring up some really important points. Personally, I would prefer that publishers are not-for-profit. I have not thought of charging the authors - but hey - why not this would avoid people resubmitting their paper to new journals after rejection without making any changes, which is frustrating if you were the reviewer.. Also, I think the payment for the reviewer should be contingent on the quality of the review.

Hope all is well!

Flavio

Reply



Leave a Reply.

Details

    Author

    Flavio.

    Archives

    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    March 2019
    December 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly
  • Home
  • Contact
  • Thoughts
  • Book
  • IN THE NEWS
  • ABOUT
  • Speaker