There is one „small“ problem.

Journalists are paid for what they write. So they write what will be paid. And they lie without end… They lied on Saddam Hussein, they lied on Yugoslavia, they lied on Trump, they lied on Clinton, they lied on Putin, they lied on absolutely everything, just to get some more money. Science aims at increase of knowledge and scientists write what they found, produce new knowledge. When they are paid for what they find, they sometimes pretend to have found more – to get more recognition and sometimes this means money. This produces already problems of scientific overproduction of trivial research and sometimes of fraud. If scientist would be seriously paid for what they write, they would also start writing more and more what is paid and not what is true. So they will start pretending new knowledge. Sometimes this will not be really new knowledge but new lies. So maybe it is already good how it is: we continue searching for new knowledge, recognition, fame, while earning not too much money - and enjoy this.

There is one „small“ problem.

Journalists are paid for what they write. So they write what will be paid. And they lie without end… They lied on Saddam Hussein, they lied on Yugoslavia, they lied on Trump, they lied on Clinton, they lied on Putin, they lied on absolutely everything, just to get some more money. Science aims at increase of knowledge and scientists write what they found, produce new knowledge. When they are paid for what they find, they sometimes pretend to have found more – to get more recognition and sometimes this means money. This produces already problems of scientific overproduction of trivial research and sometimes of fraud. If scientist would be seriously paid for what they write, they would also start writing more and more what is paid and not what is true. So they will start pretending new knowledge. Sometimes this will not be really new knowledge but new lies. So maybe it is already good how it is: we continue searching for new knowledge, recognition, fame, while earning not too much money - and enjoy this.

I appreciate the view of Dragan.

I do not now remember the name of a plant science journal from China which instead of asking money for publication pays the authors for publishing with them. I noticed it long back and not sure if they still continue this practice.

It is true that the real contributors i.e., authors and reviewers are not paid by journals and inspite of it they are also not given free access to all the articles (of others). The contributions of reviewers even remains mostly as voluntary service, not added directly to their academic scores.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_contributions_of_reviewers_are_added_to_their_academic_scores?_ec=topicPostOverviewAuthoredQuestions

Perhaps, this is done in order to maintain standard in academic research, avoid unwanted misuse and working of publishing processes. On one side, a researcher always got some funding/ scores/ acievement for their contributions, but it may not so for the publication house. So, it is also reasonable.

Indirect rewards to the researchers in form of funds and scores rather than direct cash rewards are best for development of a researcher, labs, institute as well as subject. Name and fame will always be with researcher, so let's share money to the publishers : )

Regards

Chitra

It is actually a growing concerning in the academic space because the publishing firm/house are really feeding fat on the intellectual property of the academic authors/ reviewers who gets maybe compensated by promotion/grants or funding elsewhere for their publication. I believe we can balance this and still maintain quality peer reviewed publications. If you publish with a publisher like LAP Lambert academic publishing house, you may be given a percentage of the number of copies of your book(s) sold from them on annual basis. You can make some little money from this provided your book is trending in the international market for you to get some money.

Thank you

In my opinion, giving shares by publication house is not a good idea. It is good for publishers in the sense to attract authors towards their publication but not good for researchers because we really rely on standard/ quality works. A real researcher will prefer to publish as well as prefer to read/refer articles on/of standard publication house rather than a profitalbe low standard publication house. So, less citation with such publication with negligible shares is expected even one publishes good works.

An academic sucide !!!

Regards

Chitra

publishers are earning money out of our publications,a portion should be paid to authors.

You can also get money indirectly through funding of a research that would lead to the publication of such research and also from promotion through consideration of paper publications and other criteria.

thank drv oluwaseun

Thank you all for the contribution in this question. Really, I liked Prof. Dragan Pavlovic comments and I can agree to some extent.

Dear Prof Dr Dragan Pavlovic,

I agree 100% with your remarks.

Between us, I don't need their money...I want just be free to execute some investigations on Medical profile of Hashisha (Cannabis sativa L.).

The rest will be fine.

All the best

Keep it Up

Taibi

Oujda/Morocco/Africa

And one small addition.

Some of us are paid for what we do, what we write, publish, write reports, educate students... etc. Why should we be paid two times for writing an article, for example - that was a part of our job? If we would do this in our “free” time , then O.K. But otherwise?

I know, we all rest late in the evening to finish our experiments, we come on Saturdays or Sundays to see our rats, mice or see what is going on in the lab, what is some student doing, has s/he some problem? But we LIKE doing this! So... what?

It is good question.

Following