A simple question that after 8 -10 years in science I still don't really get:
Where does the money go? We often pay to publish. Most journals don't actually print anything anymore (or very little and only at an extra charge). Reviewing is free (and in my opinion should stay so). So that leaves: Editors Layout artists Website development and IT But they can do a lot of work, and it seems to me the subscription fees are too high to cover them, and that the submission fees should cover them. Does anyone have a breakdown of where the money goes? (how much goes to what?) The companies we love to hate, are still only slightly profitable (ie. less than 50% profit, often much less) which means that most of what we spend for access goes to their costs, so what is the breakdown of these costs? Anyone know? What's the difference in accounting for open access journals? How do they pay for Editors, Layout artists, Website development and IT? Curious, thanks -Nick On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 3:33 PM, David L. McNeely <mcnee...@cox.net> wrote: > All of us know who the real buck chasing publishers are, and they are not > the scholarly organizations like ESA. Elsevier Press comes to mind. I'm > not sure what Wayne means when he says, "Concentrate on the work rather > than the buck." One certainly doesn't get any bucks for publishing in a > traditional journal. One does get some degree of recognition, depending on > the paper and how successful one is in getting multiple papers published. > But by and large, there is no profit in it for authors. For Elsevier, > there is profit. For ESA, ASLO, ASIH .........., hmmmm....... . > > If science wants to turn from traditional, peer reviewed publication to a > free for all, well, it will do so. But we need to be very careful about > doing away with our scholarly organizations. Whether we own up to it or > not, that is what is being proposed. > > mcneely > > ---- Wayne Tyson <landr...@cox.net> wrote: > > Honorable Forum: > > > > >From > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/11/opinion/research-bought-then-paid-for.html?_r=1 > > > > "Researchers should cut off commercial journals' supply of papers by > > publishing exclusively in one of the many "open-access" journals that are > > perfectly capable of managing peer review . . ." > > > > That is, AVOID the "prestigious" journals and concentrate on the work > rather > > than the buck. Be on the leading edge of advancing science in all > directions > > rather than depriving the "lay" public of the fruits of your talent and > > effort. > > > > WT > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "David Inouye" <ino...@umd.edu> > > To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> > > Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012 3:32 PM > > Subject: [ECOLOG-L] NYT OP-ED piece about public access to research > > publications > > > > > > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/11/opinion/research-bought-then-paid-for.html > > > > > > > > > ----- > > > No virus found in this message. > > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > > > Version: 10.0.1416 / Virus Database: 2109/4136 - Release Date: 01/11/12 > > > > > -- > David McNeely > -- Post-doctoral Researcher: Wallander and Tunlid Labs Microbial Ecology Department of Ecology Lund University Ekologihuset, SE-223 62, Lund Sweden
