|
Top-level
 @RustyBertrand Again: why didn't scientists invent a publication website long ago with per review and all, where the journals are simply left out? It seems so easy to deal with this problem. Just take a few universities that won't support Nature, Springer et al, and let things take its course. Oh, oh, and to prevent building a new monopoly, why not make it federated? Seriously, I didn't get it why journals are still a thing when I was still active, I don't get it now. 🤷♀️ 4 comments
I am totally in favour of journals being 100% open access, but we need to acknowledge that there is a cost someone has to pay.  @huxley @jesterchen @huxley @jesterchen @RustyBertrand You say that, but I've never heard of paid review work. I've never had a journal's copy editors not ruin my papers and have to have my advisor yell at them to stop breaking everything. Spelling and grammar errors are rife in published works regardless. So I disagree, no money is needed for their crap services. |
Gregory's Server
@jesterchen @RustyBertrand
I agree with the sentiment. The problem is that managing the review process, and then copy editing and producing the proofs, and then providing the platform or printing the journal is a job of work that needs to be paid for. So money is needed for that, unless you are happy for papers to be full of spelling and grammar errors, have poor quality images and be laid out in a basic way. Academic reviewers and editors will not do this, it's too time-consuming.