So, I decided to turn my rants on academia into a slightly more coherent article. It sure would be nice if RG had a blog that worked like Medium so I could publish here. Oh well. https://medium.com/@admin_95355/the-abusive-nature-of-academia-d69d753a870f

Sounds like a monopoly established between these universities and publishers. Not that I'm a fan of law, but these institutions are really avoiding being hit with anti trust lawsuits when other industries probably would get hit with them.

I would love to learn of a journal that pays researchers for their contributions, Ahmadi Murjani

Daniel you raise something of a big concern to the academic community. Am not sure if there are journals that pay researchers. They always ask for funds to publish work. I think these journals have to bear in Mind that the researcher has invested in money during data collection, time, data analysis and trainings to have an output of a manuscript worth publishable. Ideally, they should not charge money to publish one's work.

You write a well researched book, give a publishing company, it is publishable, the company publishes it ... they make their money, you get royalties.

You write a well researched essay, give to a publishing journal, it is publishable, the journal publishes it ... they make their money, you get nothing.

There is something wrong with this system.

I want to add a summary of a discussion that I had on Twitter. What I left out of this summery is that the "relationship" is a postdoc position with an academic institution that "employs" the person, even though they're funded through grants. The funding is locked up because of the government shutdown. But even if it weren't, this is no way to live.

Dear Daniel Goldman , bring the link to your twitter account, there are few people with same name. Thanks.

Hello Ljubomir Jacić, my twitter account is https://twitter.com/alc_anthro/

Dear Daniel Goldman , thanks. I will follow you.

Regarding the issue of authors to be paid, please do visit this related threads with so many answers.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_do_journals_editors_not_pay_to_authors_for_publishing

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_do_we_pay_research_journals_for_publishing_our_work_with_them

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Do_we_have_to_pay_to_read_research_papers_articles_Why

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_that_fair_that_authors_should_pay_publication_process_fee_while_users_go_for_free

So would you consider the practice to be predatory in nature, Ljubomir Jacić?

This discussion is very interesting per se.

@Professor Ljubomir Jacic, please add new to this discussion.

Can like-minded scholars here or elsewhere come together and develop an online publishing platform where authors or writers get paid as people browse their articles? It is possible.

Chinedu Nwadike, I think we could. I actually think that RG itself could do it, indirectly, by developing a blockchain + cryptoasset platform that generates tokens based on the total publication activity on the platform, and doles out the new tokens based on the RG score. Of course, there are two issues with using the RG score: it has to be fair, and it cannot easily be gamed. The problem is that, in many ways, the two issues are mutually exclusive. Transparency helps improve fairness, but it also makes it easier to game the score.

OK. We need a way forward.

Unfortunately I have some ideas, but I lack the programming skills to implement them. And I haven't built up enough of a following to convince others to join my cause. But a way forward will appear.

Rather than starting from Ground Zero, the next step could be to open discussions with RG.

Daniel Goldman , I have not understood your question: " So would you consider the practice to be predatory in nature, Ljubomir Jacić? "! Some explanation?

I think you need journals to disseminate your research and that's what they get paid for and for their continuity which I assume is a synergetic action.

Daniel Goldman: I have conducted quite extensive research into conferences & conference outputs (particularly conference posters), and in the same way you ask if journal articles could perhaps be better disseminated/discussed, I reach similar conclusions for my area. My PhD is due for defence this year (soon I hope!), but as part of the recommendations, I forward a new way of hosting and disseminating the work, and also some thoughts on adopting a new approach to peer review. To support such a proposal, I have demonstrated a number of areas where our current system does not and cannot work, and also the place conference attendance/publication has in scientific communication (e.g. annual expenditures >$22 billion, >60% loss rates, 110% more conference publications than published journal articles, etc.). We blindly carry on doing what we have always done, following the old business models and apprenticeships. I think you are right that now is a good time for an alternative model.

Feel free to PM me if you have any thoughts or development ideas.

So, I decided to turn my rants on academia into a slightly more coherent article. It sure would be nice if RG had a blog that worked like Medium so I could publish here. Oh well. https://medium.com/@admin_95355/the-abusive-nature-of-academia-d69d753a870f

Daniel Goldman - well said! I have posted links to the article on FB, and also, the Medium platform allows you to applaud articles multiple times - I chose 27 as a random number ;-) If you do want to explore this further, PM me as mentioned above.

Nicholas E Rowe, I noticed that. I was a little confused as why there were 27 claps from a single person. I am working on a second article, and third, related to this topic, but those will be for quite a while in the future. The next set of articles will likely be quite different. So... getting back to this question, what do you think we can do about these issues?

I still like the idea of RG setting up a crypyoasset that distributes based on total productivity of the community, and gives each person based on their own contribution. The concern is that RG could abuse the system by manipulating the scoring, but at the same time, an open scoring system can be abused by individuals who want to game the system. Hmm...

I would like to first see an 'International no-publish week'. Set it up on one of the pledge / citizens initiative sites, & get people to sign a pledge not to publish during this particular week until the situation has been suitably addressed. Because it will seldom be of critical impact individually, it would be great to imagine the empty in-boxes. Signing up might let people make a passive rebellion statement that wouldn't harm their livelihood, & if enough people signed up, it could be presented as a petition.

That's a very interesting idea. It would at least be a good way to show solidarity.

There are a number of ways to go about it. I think the best way is to look at a number of platforms & decide exactly what your basis is, what your message is, what you want people to do, what you will do, etc. What do you want to achieve, and with what results?

I think a lot of people will show solidarity, which could cause some embarrassment for the industry and our institutions that claim to be fair and liberal ;-)

Happy to play with you on this if you like - perhaps move this element of the conversation off RG?

https://www.change.org/start-a-petition?source_location=blank_source___exp_null___direct_ask&step=ask

http://www.socialbrite.org/2010/07/20/9-online-petition-tools-how-to-make-a-difference/