This is the most accurate summary of academic publishing

[futureapppsy2]

(His content is generally excellent too).

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Ollie123]

I'm surprised their profit margins are only 40%. Where does the money go? Based on my experiences, copyediting is generally done by a mix of broken computer algorithms and offshore indentured servants working for pennies/hour. Has anyone actually read a physical copy of a journal in the last 10 years that would necessitate mass printing press equipment? What else do they do that has actual cost? Do executive salaries/bonuses count as operating expenses? Maybe that's it.

My retirement dream is to disrupt/displace the entire academic publishing industry with an internet forum. Reviewers respond publicly, original post gets edited accordingly. All changes tracked/archived ala REDcap. Forums are divvied up by field and science quality. If you post in JAMA tier and people respond with why your study is a dumpster fire a moderator moves your study to unite with its fellow garbage science. The review process is perpetual, not limited to a few people and if new issues become apparent a year later from people commenting on your post who were not the initial reviewers, you get moved as well. Data and code is mandatory to build into the post. Some built-in tools to facilitate formatting for easier reading than traditional forums. Your account saves your personal annotation of all documents in perpetuity in the cloud and accessible across devices.

The technology to do this has been here for 10-20 years. Storage for the data files is an issue for certain fields (i.e. imaging, genetics, many basic science fields) but that's changing fast. Would need to crunch the numbers but factoring out storage of actual raw data I'm reasonably confident I could run an operation supporting the entire scientific enterprise for less than what elsevier pays their CEO. Would still need volunteer moderators and reviewers, but that feels less icky with no publication costs and nothing paywalled. Could support the whole thing off some unobtrusive banner ads for academic jobs and research gadgets at 50 bucks a day.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I love his stuff....as it is always funny, but usually pretty darn accurate too.

 

[DynamicDidactic]

This was the most popular post on reddit the other day.

To be fair, jobs and salary increases are literally on the line for publishing. Sure there is prestige for those that do not need to publish. But for many the publications translate to jobs, tenure, salary increases, and grant funding.

 

[AbnormalPsych]

This hurt me.

 

[tr]

I'm surprised their profit margins are only 40%. Where does the money go? Based on my experiences, copyediting is generally done by a mix of broken computer algorithms and offshore indentured servants working for pennies/hour. Has anyone actually read a physical copy of a journal in the last 10 years that would necessitate mass printing press equipment? What else do they do that has actual cost? Do executive salaries/bonuses count as operating expenses? Maybe that's it.

Not to mention the reviewers working for **free**. I feel so exploited every time I turn in a manuscript review. Also guilty knowing that other struggling overworked academics are donating their own time to review my submissions.

 

[Ollie123]

Weirdly, I am mostly unbothered by manuscript reviews despite my distaste for the broader publishing system. As long as it seems like the author's tried. Which sadly, a lot of authors do not. I'm actually far more irritated at getting paid $200 to review 700 pages worth of grants for a study section.

I'm blanking on the details, but I think there are some classic psych experiments showing people find poor pay worse than no pay in certain cases that are probably relevant to explaining my reaction to these.

 

[Spydra]

Yes this was funny. But what would a system for journals paying scholars for their publications actually look like? Something tells me its easier said than done and I'm not entirely sure it would be helpful. It seems much easier and perhaps more beneficial to pay reviewers. If reviewers were paid we could do away with anonymous reviewers entirely and perhaps shrink the turnaround time for reviews.

 

[Temperance]