Comment on Nature is blunt.

• ArcticDagger@feddit.dk ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

  You will transfer the economic copyright to most journals upon publication of the typeset manuscript meaning that you’re not allowed to publish that particular PDF anywhere. However, a lot of journals are okay with you publishing the pre-peer reviewed article or even sometimes the peer-reviewed, but NOT typeset article (sometimes called post-print article). Scientific publishing is weird :-)

  source

  • Rolando@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    The last couple journals I published in let you put the post-print PDF on your web page after an “embargo period”. I’ve never personally seen a journal forbid you from submitting articles whose preprints had been posted in sites like arxiv.org.

    But I think scientific publishing isn’t “weird”, more like “predatory”, “exploitative”, or at least “antiquated.”

    source
  • refalo@programming.dev ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Just leak it before publishing it. Also most authors will give you the pdf for free if you just email them and ask for it nicely.

    source
  • AeonFelis@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    or even sometimes the peer-reviewed, but NOT typeset article

    What does that mean? The LaTeX source?

    source

    • ArcticDagger@feddit.dk ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      The typeset article is what you’d see if you download the .pdf from, e.g., Nature. See here. It’s the manuscript with all the stuff that distinguishes an article from one journal to another (where is the abstract, what font type, is there a divider between some sections, etc.). Articles that have not been typeset yet can be seen from Arxiv, for example this one: arxiv.org/abs/2409.04391

      source

      • AeonFelis@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        So basically the article you are allowed to release can have its typesetting - it just can’t have the journal’s preamble/theme?

        source

        • -> View More Comments
  • Comment105@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

    Why publish through a journal at all? What do they do that WordPress doesn’t? Are they the source of your credibility? Do they pay the peer reviewers. Or are you all just whipped?

    source

    • ArcticDagger@feddit.dk ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      There are several benefits, but compared to WordPress, I guess the biggest one is outreach: no one will actually see an article if it’s published by a young researcher that hasn’t made a name for themselves yet. It will also not be catalogued and will therefore be more difficult to find when searching for articles.

      Also, calling researchers “whipped” is a bit dismissive to the huge inertia there is in the realm of scientific publication. The scientific journal of Nature was founded in 1869, but general open-access publishing has only really taken off in the last decade or so.

      source

      • Comment105@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

        So they are the source of your credibility. And you continue to agree to have it that way.

        source

        • -> View More Comments
    • General_Effort@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨months⁩ ago

      Publications in peer-reviewed journals are how a career in science is built. It’s impossible to measure the productivity of a scientist. What is done, is that one looks at their publications. How many publications do they have? How often are they cited? What is the quality of the journal?

      This creates very bad incentives, leading to things like publication bias. It also means that you must publish in prestigious journals. You don’t have a choice but to accept their terms. Libraries don’t have a choice but to stock these journals. It’s a straight-forward monopoly racket. These publishers make fantastical profits.

      All that money can be used for PR campaigns and lobbying to keep the good times rolling.

      source