Commercial journals and prestigious journals are not inclusive of one another.
Commercial journals use a number of strategies to inflate their
initial impact ratings.
These strategies are not available to most non-commercial outlets.
For example,
most societies publish 1-2 journals. Most commerci
Nicholas Rosenstock wrote:
> A simple question that after 8 -10 years in science I still don't really
> get:
>
> Where does the money go?
So far as ESA is concerned, _The Annual Report_ is published, duh, annually for
anyone who wants to know: http://www.esa.org/aboutesa/docs/annualrepor
erences Re: [ECOLOG-L] NYT OP-ED
piece about public access to research publications
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 t
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:
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 tra
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 . .
