I laughed when I saw this, sent to me by Mrs T yesterday (see pasted link below).
‘Too greedy’: mass walkout at global science journal over ‘unethical’ fees | Peer review and scientific publishing | The Guardian
What a load of cant.
Universities and the academics who run them have created a merit system whereby tenure and promotions are determined by grant income and publication outcome. The journal impact factor (JIF), a number based on how well papers published in a journal are cited by other investigators is the key indicator. The universities and academics know JIF is meaningless (it is an average for all papers published in a journal over 2 years, and we all know that not all examples of something are equal - our game on Monday for example was hardly equal to the previous game, yet both emanated from the same organization), However universities still intimidate junior staff with threats that they must publish in journals with JIFs above ‘x’ or they won’t have a career.
So of course publishers will charge researchers to publish, based on the JIF. They would be mad to not do so. Market forces.
We live in a global capitalist economy. If I think it would help my career to join the Athaneum (rather nice food there, and great for swanky hob-nobbing) I would need to pass their entry requirements and pay the fees. If I want to publish in a well-regarded, high JIF journal then I (or my institution or funders) should pay. Why should my funders such as the MRC or BHF pay? Because they expect me to publish in these journals or they won’t renew my grants.
I’m a member of the Labour party, not a free market zealot. There is something to be said for a different way of publishing. But all the while that individuals and universities demand the kudos of high JIF publications they must pay.
The attitude of my line managers is that if I can’t raise the money to pay for my research and publications then I’m not doing my job. With certain caveats….they are right.
‘Too greedy’: mass walkout at global science journal over ‘unethical’ fees | Peer review and scientific publishing | The Guardian
‘Too greedy’: mass walkout at global science journal over ‘unethical’ fees Entire board resigns over actions of academic publisher whose profit margins outstrip even Google and Amazon www.theguardian.com |
What a load of cant.
Universities and the academics who run them have created a merit system whereby tenure and promotions are determined by grant income and publication outcome. The journal impact factor (JIF), a number based on how well papers published in a journal are cited by other investigators is the key indicator. The universities and academics know JIF is meaningless (it is an average for all papers published in a journal over 2 years, and we all know that not all examples of something are equal - our game on Monday for example was hardly equal to the previous game, yet both emanated from the same organization), However universities still intimidate junior staff with threats that they must publish in journals with JIFs above ‘x’ or they won’t have a career.
So of course publishers will charge researchers to publish, based on the JIF. They would be mad to not do so. Market forces.
We live in a global capitalist economy. If I think it would help my career to join the Athaneum (rather nice food there, and great for swanky hob-nobbing) I would need to pass their entry requirements and pay the fees. If I want to publish in a well-regarded, high JIF journal then I (or my institution or funders) should pay. Why should my funders such as the MRC or BHF pay? Because they expect me to publish in these journals or they won’t renew my grants.
I’m a member of the Labour party, not a free market zealot. There is something to be said for a different way of publishing. But all the while that individuals and universities demand the kudos of high JIF publications they must pay.
The attitude of my line managers is that if I can’t raise the money to pay for my research and publications then I’m not doing my job. With certain caveats….they are right.