This is a follow-up to my post of last month:
Some time ago I submitted a paper to a middle ranking learned journal for consideration, in the hope that it would -- after peer review -- be approved and accepted for publication online. The Editor wrote: "Thank you for the fine manuscript, which I enjoyed reading very much." So I went through the mandatory submission process online, but came up against the buffers when I got to the section dealing with APCs (article publishing / processing charges). I could not complete that section because I have no current affiliation with a UK academic institution, and did not have the wherewithal ($3,000) to get my article published. There are waivers, but only for researchers based in one of the small or impoverished countries deemed worthy of support. The central publishing office (one of the big ones!) was completely inflexible on this, and so I had to withdraw the article, which clearly was of a sufficient standard to be published. The journal, which prides itself on "open access publishing", is clearly not open access at all, either for readers or writers who are not currently working in an academic institution. It is open access for a privileged few whose institutions foot their publishing bills.
Now I can well understand that the big journal publishing houses like Wiley, Elsevier and Taylor & Francis have to devise business models that will earn them a profit, but surely there has to be a better way than this? If non-affiliated researchers and readers are cut out of the academic process of producing and scrutinising research materials, the process remains in the hands of an elite, and the losers must be science and the truth. Knowledgeable members of the public who want to keep up with developments in their fields of expertise will have to depend on popular magazine articles and media headlines based on press releases -- and we all know how dangerous that scenario is.
As we all say far too often, something should be done about it........
Now I can well understand that the big journal publishing houses like Wiley, Elsevier and Taylor & Francis have to devise business models that will earn them a profit, but surely there has to be a better way than this? If non-affiliated researchers and readers are cut out of the academic process of producing and scrutinising research materials, the process remains in the hands of an elite, and the losers must be science and the truth. Knowledgeable members of the public who want to keep up with developments in their fields of expertise will have to depend on popular magazine articles and media headlines based on press releases -- and we all know how dangerous that scenario is.
As we all say far too often, something should be done about it........
Stranglehold is the word that springs to my mind.
ReplyDeleteThe trouble is that the big journal publishing houses have literally thousands of journals on their books, and they have to make a profit. The old model involved the sale of hard copies to individual subscribers and libraries all over the planet; I used to subscribe to half a dozen journals when I was in Durham. That model is defunct, and now everything is digital. Probably half of the journals published should be dumped -- they are niche publications read by very few people. The publishers would argue that genuine open access has to be paid for somehow -- but the model they are currently using is elitist and manifestly unfair for those of us who are outside academia.
ReplyDeleteThe open access model is the worse thing to happen to academic publishing. I call it the pay to play model. As a professional I can afford the cost through grants but it doesn’t help anyone else. It’s a very unfair system. There might be a preprint service you can upload your paper to.
ReplyDelete