- Joined
- Jul 16, 2019
- Messages
- 303
- Reaction score
- 569
Class action against Elsevier, other publishers
- Thread starter IonsAreOurFuture
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2011
- Messages
- 1,703
- Reaction score
- 3,618
I wouldn’t hold my breath for anything to come of this. Beating an established system is very hard. Especially when the plaintiffs are well off and directly or indirectly benefiting from the system. If we publish and get grants, we get tenured to high paying jobs from which we basically can’t get fired. Don’t get me wrong, I’d love to see some big changes. I’m just not expecting it.
Where id really like to see changes even more is at NIH study sections. The “experts” on my last couple of summary statements have made a couple of statements which clearly show some pretty significant technical deficiencies. The whole system of using free labor can be very frustrating. Sometimes it really does feel like you pay for what you get. And when you pay nothing…
I'm more interested to know how we got to the place where the results of publicly-funded research are not freely available to the public who funded said research.
At least it eliminates any guilt I might potentially feel when visiting sci hub.
At least it eliminates any guilt I might potentially feel when visiting sci hub.
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2004
- Messages
- 12,328
- Reaction score
- 12,792
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2018
- Messages
- 67
- Reaction score
- 215
In the recent past, I reviewed dozens of papers for one of the major RO journals. In fact, I reviewed more than any other reviewer that year. I went through each paper rigorously and did my best to critique the work honestly. That same year I wrote a paper and the reviews were 100% garbage. When it was finally published, I had to pay a considerable fee for open access. The entire process made me realize that I was wasting my time. I haven't reviewed another paper since.
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2011
- Messages
- 8,905
- Reaction score
- 11,363
I did many reviews as a resident to fluff the resume. As an attending, not worth my time.
I realized early on that being a reviewer is a thankless job, unless it’s for a premier journal and you’re at the cutting edge of science, in which case there are some benefits to stay up to date and maybe even scoop other big labs.
In case anyone wants to take a dive like I just did and feel even less bad about visiting sci hub:
www.theguardian.com
Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science?
The long read: It is an industry like no other, with profit margins to rival Google – and it was created by one of Britain’s most notorious tycoons: Robert Maxwell
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2020
- Messages
- 1,565
- Reaction score
- 4,626
Other than a byline on a CV, are there more meaningful ways to commoditize being a reviewer for academics?
Why don't medical fields participate in something akin to arXiv, where a publication is immediately available (with some moderation) while submission to trad journals takes place and edits can be made dynamically and immediately available to readers?
Just throwing out wishful thoughts...I'm not an academic. I think our present journal structure is a bit of an impediment...to timely publication, to daring work, to access for all. I would rather have access to the crazy thoughts and work academic radonc.
We could link here and pillory/praise at will...would probably be much better for the field.
Why don't medical fields participate in something akin to arXiv, where a publication is immediately available (with some moderation) while submission to trad journals takes place and edits can be made dynamically and immediately available to readers?
Just throwing out wishful thoughts...I'm not an academic. I think our present journal structure is a bit of an impediment...to timely publication, to daring work, to access for all. I would rather have access to the crazy thoughts and work academic radonc.
We could link here and pillory/praise at will...would probably be much better for the field.
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2019
- Messages
- 303
- Reaction score
- 569
I was wondering about this, because it gives the reviewers a competitive edge to see major results months before publication and a chance to ding or hold up or suppress other's findings, how does the industry counter conflicts of interest?
It’s not an issue for clinical trials because it takes so long to conduct, but is very much a problem for basic/translational science. Crispr patents I believe Zhang lab reviewed Doudna lab’s papers for example. You can recommend reviewers or exclude reviewers as a submitting/corresponding author. Being a reviewer is community service that can make sense if you’re actively participating in the community and submitting papers yourself for publication, and you know and you like the other people in your academic field.
- Joined
- Mar 14, 2002
- Messages
- 15,108
- Reaction score
- 9,482
Since 2008 the NIH has required that any publication at least in part supported by the NIH becomes freely available within 12 months. The government works directly with some journals to do this, while other articles can be found through pubmed/pubmed central where funded authors are required to deposit them.
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2022
- Messages
- 1,262
- Reaction score
- 4,286
I started doing this for all my work the last couple years, but participating in the academic effort has become so uncomfortable I just dont do any work anymore 🤣
The people making a career of journal editing/volunteering are not your friends. I have never had one stick up for me when I needed it and Ive never been thanked for reviewing. They are Elsevier's friends though, they do a lot to hold back a lot of rightfully angry people. Its surprising to me this drama with publishers is still going, I thought UC pushing back would be the start of real change.
Also, people just wont preprint. It is absurd. I feel bad because you can tell they know its the right thing to do, but it might harm their career in vague ways that are hard to understand. They don't want to get "scooped". I have never understood scooping, as confirmation of experimental findings is pretty valuable if you're doing real science. Are we trying to discover or just be first to market with ideas that can be monetized? Thats rhetorical.
I do understand if you are seeking a patent, you cant put it out there.
No physicians should feel bad using SciHub with the number of people leeching money off our backs in this country (IMO)
