Angry Elsevier noises intensify in the background…
Comment on The Code
RandomLegend@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 months ago
Imagine living in a world where it has to be explicitly said that you are allowed to send someone a free copy of something you wrote.
Cobrachicken@lemmy.world 2 months ago
N0body@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 months ago
“We work hard every day to stamp “peer-reviewed” on ChatGPT botslop and collect money. It’s a valuable service.”
booty@hexbear.net 2 months ago
tbf the confusion is not so much that the author would be allowed to but that they’d want to. people would naturally assume that like with many things people put time into creating, such as novels and video games and whatever else, that the fee required to access it is desired by the author and in some way benefits them.
emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works 2 months ago
The research was paid for by someone. It is not unheard of for a company to offer a grant under the condition that they get the results, say, six months before the rest of the world.
mosiacmango@lemm.ee 2 months ago
This the the vase for publically funded research as well. Scientific journals have paper submitted for free, papers reviewed for free, then they charge the $35/article fee to anyone who reads it, or more generally, they charge universities/etcs in the 5 to 6 figures sum year for unlimited access.
Scientific journals are a billion dollar industry who do literally nothing positive for that money. They limit scientific progress to make money, and thats it.
Alexstarfire@lemmy.world 2 months ago
If they review papers for “free” is that not worth something?
I definitely don’t think it should be for profit but it seems like there is value and costs to what they do. That money has to come from somewhere.
paysrenttobirds@sh.itjust.works 2 months ago
I could be wrong, but my understanding is the reviews are done by other academics for free, if at all… That’s why getting published is kind of reputation based and circular because the cheapest review is just to look up whether they’ve been published before.
WoahWoah@lemmy.world 2 months ago
AFAIK, peer reviewers are typically other academics in the field (peers) that are asked to voluntarily review a given article. The publisher doesn’t pay peer reviewers.
mosiacmango@lemm.ee 2 months ago
The journals dont review anything. Other scientists do the reviews for free. Scientific prominence is a key to promotion for scientists, so they publish to keep their jobs. Journals were built to abuse this fact.
Scientists publish papers for free, orher scientists reviews papers for free, journals charge billions/yr to publish this free work, now mostly in digital formats, a medium that is effectivly free when serving pdfs files.
Scientific journals are a racket, bar none. There are attempts to open source the publishing of these journals, but often if you publish in an open source one, the for profit journals will not accept the piece.
BearOfaTime@lemm.ee 2 months ago
Given that even peer review is a shit show, I’d say there’s no value in these publishers reviewing anything.