You must log in or register to comment.
Elsevier has a 3 billion dollar income, while most of its research is publicly funded. You are paying for the research, then paying again to access the results of the research that you already paid for. The executives can hang.
Behold nothing! >⠀<
It is so much worse than that.
I spend my time researching the literature on a topic so that I can spend my time and energy writing a grant. It probably won’t get funded.
If it does, I get to do a bunch of work. It might involve travel, where I will do everything at minimum expense to save enough money for the coming lab work.
I will spend significant time getting the samples analyzed, spending most of the grant money. Then I will come up with a logical way to interpret the data.
I will spend more time sending a document around to coauthors. This may take months, or even years if the coauthors fight.
We eventually submit to a journal. It gets rejected.
We rewrite and submit again. A few months later, congratulations, you get to publish. Money please.
I work for the money to do the work, I work for the writeup, I fight for the acceptance, and I have to pay to publish.
It’s a stupid system.
Nothing will meaningfully improve until the rich fear for their lives
sorry, not the first time I saw you saying that.
Lmao i love this
I do agree 100%,. rich people should be scared. was just being a bit silly.
You can thank Ghislaine Maxwell’s dad for that shit.
“and for the hours of peer review, we pay nothing.”
Not just science. I own a small art business. The magazines in my world all do this. I see my competitors paying hundreds of dollars for “interviews” in them. The entire magazine is an ad masquerading as some type of journalism. I don’t even pay for ads and I’m buried in work. So it’s not needed, at all (who reads this stuff? At least a science journal makes sense).
Honestly it’s shameful across the board. Anyone participating should feel bad about it.
Why not create open-source online “scientific jorunal” with service provided by donations then? Am I missing something?
This idea has been around over 20 years. It dies every time because major lab PIs, usually in US, HATE the idea of not being able to gatekeep research publications in journals of “high impact”. This impacts how institutions are assessed, because, God forbid people actually have to read the papers. This feeds back to Editors, so the number one factor that influences Editors now is zip code.
If we went to a simple repository archive, with transparent peer review, then no one could imply their research is more important because of where it was published. We would let citations determine impact. Science publishing has always pushed the idea that if Einstein drove a Honda, everyone who drives a Honda is a genius.
Meanhile, The Lancet (JIF 105) took 12 years to retract a paper linking autism to vaccines, when it was clearly fraudulent from day one. Nature, Science, CELL, just stopped retractions, at best, they have “statements of Editorial Concern”. This high JIF model is why Alzheimers research has stalled behind a flawed hypothesis only reinforced by fraudulent work not retracted for 25 years. Some people, like the President of Stanford, rose to the top tier on fraud and journal gatekeeping.
2020 saw the world arguing over ivermectin based off a paper “reviewed” overnight, with the journal Editor as an author. The journal 5 years later refuses to prove the paper was peer reviewed at all. 3,400 citations.
Then we have predatory journals that will publish literally anything for page charges. Examples:
Get me off your fucking mailing list.
and
Chicken, chicken chicken chicken, Chicken? chicken. (Cited 35 times)
I have no clue how to improve this situation, but I appreciate this comment, especially the cited papers.
Chicken, chicken, chicken…
It’s simple. Have a central repository similar to Axriv or BioRxiv, but one step further where a manuscript is modified after peer review. The site publishes the paper and the peer reviews (few journals publish peer reviews). Readers can then decide if the science is valid, or not. It should be supported by a consortium of countries, because the world governments currently waste $13B a year on publication fees -that’s money that should be in labs doing research.
The current situation is so broken, important research can get held up for YEARS by some cunt at Harvard or Stanford who wil delay the process while his/her lab catches up. Soem of these prize winners owe their careers to “inspiration” from studies they reviewed and rejected.
world governments currently waste $13B a year on publication fees -that’s money that should be in labs doing research.
And only a tiny fraction of that $13B can buy a lot of lawyers, lobbyists, and favors to make sure things don’t improve.
The site publishes the paper and the peer reviews (few journals publish peer reviews). Readers can then decide if the science is valid, or not.
…So like Wikipedia for papers? With the “peer review” being the discussion section?
That sounds like a great project for Wikimedia TBH. That + Arixv’s nice frontend is literally the stack to do it. And they have the name recognition to draw people in.
It was a game changer for chicken. Still anticipated for the first Chicken Nobel Prize. Spun off three chicken companies.
What does PI mean (first sentence of your post)?
Principal Investigator, the person who heads a lab. Typically a university Professor at the rank of Assistant, Associate or full Professor.
IHMO: All science should be freely accessible, free as in freedom and price.
The more eyes can actually see something and find flaws, the better. There is no such thing as institutional credibility. Everyone makes mistakes and it takes everyone to find them, even more so the more complex something is. Leech publishers are not only problematic because they prohibit access, but also because they make real science considerably harder.
Everyone makes mistakes
Except psychopaths who know their claim is garbage but lie through their teeth to get it published. That’s not a mistake, that’s corruption.
Nah, real science starts with a conclusion and then works backwards to find evidence for said conclusion. I think it is a more modern approach. Instead of validating reality, we are validating feelings.
Nah, science has always worked like that. This is what peer review is for.
What’s better than finding evidence that proves your own preconceived notions? Finding evidence that contradicts someone else’s. Schadenfreude is the great engine of scientific progress.
IHMO: All science should be freely accessible, free as in freedom and price.
Taxpayers pay $13B/yr worldwide to the private publishing industry, for content they cannot read.
Experienced this first hand. Don’t understand why something better has come up. Everyone agrees that this system is broken
more Open Access non-profit journals please
You missed the part where like half the time they don’t actually do the peer review part
Peer review is often done by other PhD candidates for free.
In my univerity, they just told me how to pirate articles, straigt up, as if it was just normal and legal, very based but it was surprising.
Nobody cares anymore about leech capitalism, almost nobody defends this companies and i’m so so happy it is that way.
any article author will gladly send you a PDF.
This comic is partially right. If you pay, you get open access, so no cost for readers. If you go old-school you don’t pay and the article is paywalled. Terrible system either way, but open access is necessary nowadays, as otherwise you will get cited less
The readers are taxpayers, they are paying whether they like it for not. The solution is to post articles on preprint servers, like Arxiv or BioRxiv, which are open and free to read.
I refuse to pay open access fees and use BioRxiv for all my publications.
💯 with you on this.
We also do preprints 100% of the time, but academic incentives are baked AF. Not ‘publishing’ means a large proportion of other academics simply won’t read or cite your work as they don’t believe in preprints. Additionally, funding bodies care about prestige publishing in top ranked journals, so if you don’t do this, the grant pool you have access to will be smaller.
The incentives need to change, where journal venue is irrelevant, or weighted far less than it is.
Governments support this nonsense by not attaching publishing requirements to research grants.
They control the means of distribution and accreditation of science publishing. Business should not be trusted to control anything.
Fun (random shit I heard on the internet): the enshittification of journals mostly started with Pergamon Press which was founded by Ghislaine Maxwell’s father.
Sometimes I feel like everything shit in the world can be traced back to like a dozen people and their parents and grandparents.
🌏👨🚀🔫👨🚀🌌
But all large presses were doing the same thing. Eslevier, Nature, Etc.
There’s a behind the bastards about him.
Are we sure that current events aren’t just one long behind the bastards episode?
It’s bastards all the way down
ACAB but not ABAC
Bastards… what a bunch of bastards.
Behind the bastard is just another bastard standing in line
You mean a matrix style dystopian nightmare? One can only hope.
Fantastic episode
If you didn’t know this, it’d be weird how many academics are in the Epstein files. Once you do know it, it’s obvious.
Oh, and Robert Maxwell was legitimately a badass in WW2. Everything terrible about him starts after that.
He was indeed a badass… and a war criminal (although I admit dude was incensed about Germany killing his Jewish family, so I get it) But seriously, a mayor?
People that do well in wartime and during peacetime are different type of people.
hmmm… makes the hanging
suicidemurder of Aaron Swartz look extra funnyAnd a few years later rich folk start mass downloading the same databases to train LLM models using the exact same methods to sell access to those. No FBI.
If you’re ever caught downloading knowledge, just say you’re training a neural network and point at your head.
