This is other vision which should be answered too, because if the charity is seen always in the same sense "I receive, you pay" but never "I pay, you receive", it would not be charity which is based on mutual help and correspondence.
Becoming an accepted scientist needs publications, and the publishers (mis)use this fact to earn money.
Much transactions with taxes makes that treating of giving correspondence, the money of the transactions would be diminishing and would not be effective charity for the taxes intervention. The benefitted ones would be third parts as the state or the society but not publishers and authors.
I think it is because scientist hold onto the Olympic Ideal where participating is more important than winning. Publishers take a different view - their business models are less philanthropic and rely on the publish or perish principle.
Becoming an accepted scientist needs publications, and the publishers (mis)use this fact to earn money.
Pieter and Hanno said it already: It is as every wherer: he who has much, gets more.
The wellknown recommended scientist can sell his Image (of course normally he has worked hard for it) the young unknown scientist with best articels has to pay (money or efford)
Thats our system, if you like it or not. It is a dream to believe we can change it.
Peter
Yes, the point raised here is really interesting. We used to give our copy right to the publishers free of cost and these publisher used to charge other when the other researchers wants to read the articles. So, why not the authors be paid by the publishers just like when a book is published the authors used to get some amount.
However, dear Hanno and Eraldo, there is prevarication in giving unique value JCR to certain journals of rich countries.
If we do not sign Copyright Transfer Agreements to publishers, maybe they would change their policies. We should rethink our approach as authors, probably by means of some association of authors.
There are some interesting threads that are related to yours dear @Mariano. One of them is yours.
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_do_authors_pay_to_journals_for_publishing
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Will_Financial_Rewards_to_Authors_Stimulate_and_Grow_Interest_in_Open_Access_OA_Publishing
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Do_you_know_any_journals_that_pay_the_reviewer
Ljubomir Jacić is right in stating that retaining copy right, and not transferring it to a commercial party, is the first step in breaking a vicious circle. As software can be licensed, apps can be sold as and when required - driven by market value, why should similar mechanisms not be applicable to the selling of scientific research?
Clearly the challenge is much more complex, due to the myriad of stakeholders. But, in principle, as Khan Muhammad points out, taking a risk-based approach, challenging existing structures, bearing the financial consequences of academic entrepreneurship, is an option.
I think part of the problem is on how it is carried out the peer-review
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100813/12363610621/dailydirt-problems-with-peer-reviewed-publications.shtml
Dear all,
First: the research center (university, government agency, or whatever) pays very well the researcher. So, Why should that receive more money from the publisher?
Second: if the publisher gives money to author, ethics of process disappears. Because if the editorial "invest" money, not lose that investment rejecting the article.
Finally: I do not agree with publishers that charge for download the articles, so I like both RG. A place where those limitations are broken.
Thanks
I partly agree with Khan although most of the answers are very interesting. However, we have to have in mind that all these publishers get a lot of money from Universities for granting access to their journals, they hold or support publishing for conferences etc. So they get paid for their efforts.
From my point of view there are two questions: 1) Do you have to pay for publishing your work and if you do why reviewers do not get paid since they are an essential part of the process? Do the Editors and Editorial Board getting paid?
2) Do the journals have to pay the authors for publishing their work? If for example you are a well known scientist, do the journals have to pay for publishing your work? Or if you discover the cure for a serious disease (e.g. cancer) how much will you charge for your paper to be published?
I think that since there is high demand from scientists to publish their work, there will always be journals that promise quick reviewing process, various high impact factor indices etc., that will charge for their services.
I do not stand in favor of getting paid for my publications but I do not like to pay either. Whenever money is getting involved things getting worse. Take for example all these journals that charge 900-2000 USD for publising your work. Which are the criteria for accepting a manuscript? Quality or quantity? And if one paper is marginally to be rejected or has a few flaws what will the editor do?
The thing is that there are not well established criteria for scientific evaluation. For example, in some cases it is the number of publications that a scientist has that counts. In other cases total impact factor is taken into acount, whereas in some countries you are judged by your key publications which I think is the best.
Higgs had said that today he could not find a job in any University, considering the number of his publications, despite their influence in scientific world. My opinion is that the influence of your publications and how they advance the field of your expertise should count and not the number of publications or impact factors (which can be manipulated).
If the situation is normalized and scientifc criteria well set, the things will get better. The scientists will turn to quality instead of quantity and the science will be purer and of higher impact.
Regards, Spiros
I think that there are authors that are paid or negotiate publications and other advantages to publish in well-known Journals and make presentations as it happens in different scientific web sites. I agree with Ljubomir that Copyright Transfer Agreements is a key point.
The scientific publication belongs to whom? Journal, authors, corresponding authors, institute, University, funding organization or related Biotech that advertised products and advertisers? Who finally takes financial profit of a publication?
As it happens in a patent or an invention disclosure, the surrounding system tries to get as much profit as he can, consequently the key author(s) do not have the possibility to get a financial profit from their ideas and data/publications, except if they are backup by the system. As Peter said, only the “The well known recommended scientist » can take advantage. Through that process the scientific progress stays under control (both at the academic and private sectors). Hence, science stays “safe”.
You pay the fees of the Journal, you hope to get published, and finally you get ruined ideas and data before you see your paper in press. I was talking with the owner of a Biotech in the USA and he told me the best way to use and take profit from your ideas and products is to keep them as a “secret home” remedy.
I think its very likely because the want to make money off of us! Also with the huge economic downturn, many scientists have started their own journals to keep alive and for revenue and to support the staff they need to charge. They says its so that open access costs are shared and more can see your work. I understand, but when you are a nonprofit or a junior investigator you also cannot get your work in the best journals and that hurts us in the long run. Will it get better soon?????
In cases where no remuneration has been paid for a contribution, § 38 of the German Copyright Act states that the author may otherwise reproduce and distribute the work on expiry of one year from the date of release, unless otherwise agreed.
http://www.publisso.de/en/advice/publishing-advice-faqs/monographs-contributions-to-edited-volumes-and-conference-papers/
Some Journals in India also pay to authors.
Both way: payment affects quality!
Many interesting aspects are addressed here but I think it is worth to have a look on dependencies and relationships apart from those between editors and authors.
First, academic researchers are paid by their organizations, i.e. universities etc. for doing certain jobs, teaching or research. Part of this contract is also to make the results of the research public, usually in scientific journals. In addition, an aspect which is often ignored is that the research results do not belong to the researchers but to the paying organizations which mostly pay also the costs for publications.
Second, the edtiorial process, production and dissemination of research results costs some money which needs to be covered by someone (see above). So, there is actually no money left to pay the authors and there is no reason for paying the authors for publishing their work.
Third, there are alternative journals on the market, often open access journals, that do not charge their authors APCs nor their readers subscription fees. It is real charity and support of the scientific community if an organization would cover all the costs for quality assessment, editorial process, production and dissemination of the work and thus contributes to the communication of knowledge and ideas.
For example, the Beilstein-Institut, a non-profit foundation, is running two open access journals at no fees but with much professional and technical efforts spent in order to publish high-quality papers. Since the authors retain their copyrights they can reuse their data for other purposes.
http://www.beilstein-institut.de/en/publications
If the payments are only in a sense authors --> editors, this explains why the editors are of rich countries and they need unwary authors. I think the actual model of journal publishing is capitalist business and do not make service to the true knowledge necessarily. It is my opinion, because it is necessary to exploit the authors as a part of the business. The authors' work is a free prime matter which after some little transformation is put to the sale with high price. This does not respect the authors' contributions and rights. This model does not respect the scientific workers.
Mariano, I totally agree to your view: of course, the publishing business is a perfect business to make a lot of money. If you have a look at the profit of the Big Four in this business you'll understand why this kind of business modell is defended against any form of attack.
The business of publishing is no charity, and the same applies to any business,
Cesar is right, but a question is, how high should the profit be. 10000 euro or more per abo??
The simpleast answer : because there are many guys who are ready to publish without money compensation and moreover there are several others who are eager to pay for being published.
How one can explain such a strange situation? Whatever one says of course there will be some few exeptions. The explanation to such a strange situation is also easy: because the dominating part is payed in a different form: grants, titles, fame etc. There are differences if one consideres different countries. The situation in science reminds the period of tulip mania in the early 17th centuray.
The system evolved in academia needs each and every individual researcher to do publication unless other wise how good he is doesn't matter.
The publishers founded mostly by people from academia do also know this fact and they have opened their shops with the name of abc publisher and with aim of collecting money not research or knowledge.
A simple proof is that Any reviews from any journal (for your even best article) will have the following comment.
"do cite our abc articles"
just for raising their impact factor.
REGARDS
this question is very interesting because from your line of thinking (which is correct), it should follow that authors should be paid. But it is the other way around, because authors are the ones who need to publish, following the lethal "publish or perish" agenda of scentific research. This is not an intrinsic characteristics of research, of course, but it is a lamentable consequence of neoliberal politics that have authors/scientists/researchers produce (and the term "produce" is interesting in this light) new research in the form of publication. Publications bring citations with them and more citations bring an increased "reputation" (impact factor and the like) to authors. Institutions promote "productivity" and "productivity" brings career promotion and funding. So this has to do with money and labour chain, where authors are those who have to produce and have recognition in terms of career, whith less and less emphasis on immediate profit.
Dear Mariano and Professors
I agree that researchers should be benefits from the publication
But, as others discuss that we need our papers are published thus they (pubishers take advantage of it for their businesses). Of course, the good publications are contributions for social not only for short - term, but also for long - term since they need time for recognitions.
But, as we have talked, I think the scientist must be benefited from the publishing products, thus I think that publishers may require authors for submittion fee, but they have to pay for authors for a share in every download of readers. It just likes other industry such as music, they pay for every download of a song for both singer and author
Best
Canh
I think that journalism should be with few or none economic interchanges journal-authors because they could darken the good intentions of its activity. If the authors can be considered well paid in their centres, the journal's editors and publishers can be considered well paid without charges to the authors. And if not, their activity could be subventioned by official instances as public universities, ministrys, etc. to assure just incomes to the staff of the journals.
Thanks for the invitation.
In most cases, authors pay to publish. The problem is the required amount of money. If the author considers that this amount is not fair, he/she must test another option. And always, there is the option to send the manuscript to scientific journals free of cost. The right of choice is given.
I totally agree with the fact that Authors gets paid in a long run by being promoted and through invitation as guest lecturer to universities and corporate. I still feel authors need to pay for publishing. but like cahn said, they publishing house has to pay the authors for a share in every download by readers.I mean each time your work is downloaded there should be a fee attached to it to be share among the publishing house and the author. I just hope some publishing house representatives are here to take action on this.
Dear César,
I remember in the information to authors of very reputed journals according to JCR that charity is one of their principles. But understanding the charity in only one sense "I receive money, you put work and money for me", I think it is a bad interpretation of charity. Charity was defined by Jesus as "do to others what you would like they would do with you".
Mariano Ruiz Espejo,
Most of the time, the authors are paid indirectly.
1. A phd student if publisehes his paper, he is entitled with the degree by publishing his finding in a reputable journal.
2. The academic professionals are being rewarded in terms of promotion by publishing paper.
If the editor pay to authors, then the standard of advancement in knowledge will be turns into a business.
Dear Khalid,
Yes, the unique economic beneficiary for publishing would be the Journal and the enterprise or institution which supports the Journal.
Others possible beneficiaries are the author, if the publication opens his professional trajectory, and the society, if the contribution is relevant for the common welfare. But these are possibilities only while the economic benefit is the first thing that it occurs.
Dear Khan Muhammad,
What does PBUH mean? Thank you for your words of gratefulness.
"Peace to you. As the Father sent me, I send you too" were the the first words of resurrected Jesus to his apostles when he resurrected appeared to them. Thank you.
Have you seen this J. Beall info?
OA Journal Pays Authors for Their Work — $2,500!
"According to the call for papers posted on the journal’s website, successful submissions earn their authors an award of US $2,500 upon publication of the paper. Not only that, but peer reviewers get $500. This is the exact opposite of the gold open-access model and is very rare in scholarly publishing...
I wonder about the ethical aspects of this practice. If the payments are being made to attract papers with the potential of many citations, then it may be questionable — it may be seen as an attempt to game the impact factor..."
https://scholarlyoa.com/2012/12/28/oa-journal-pays-authors-for-their-work-2500/
Thank you, Ljubomir. I know that some posts of editor or referee in some journals are well retributed. But the authors are considered as a free prime matter usually. The journal you cite is an exception. Congratulations for them.
Dear César,
If charity does not apply to publishing but capitalist business, the result is depravation for all the parts except for the editorial which obtains an injust benefit based on exploitation of the other parts.
Who can he say that the material product of the editorial is more important than the activities of authors and readers? These must be respected too in their work and contributions to the well common, and not be considered as an exploitable part for their work.
The reason could be that the diversification of payments makes devaluate the benefits. But, in this logic, payments of authors devaluate their scientific product. One is rejected by the most part of editors, the other one is accepted by many editors. The possible conclusion is that editors search a benefit clearly and contradictorily.
Randy Schekman, Nobel Laureate, 2013, RG member, has raised his voice against such malpractice that happens in scientific publishing.
"A Nobel prize winner is boycotting academic journals because he believes they are distorting the scientific process and encouraging researchers to cut corners.
Randy Schekman, a US biologist, said top scientific journals represent a “tyranny” as they create an artificial pressure on young scientists who feel they have to be published by one of the three main journals - Nature, Cell and Science.
Schekman, who has been awarded the Nobel prize in physiology and medicine, said journals were encouraging researchers to pursue fashionable science and topics that would attract attention.
He also said some researchers were being enticed to write what editors of the journals want because of the high price some institutions will pay writers as a bonus. The Chinese Academy of Sciences can pay researchers a bonus for publishing in some journals, which can reach £18,000...."
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Randy_Schekman
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/10507434/Nobel-prize-winner-accuses-scientific-journals-of-tyranny.html
Other editors of books give benefits to the authors of books for sales of them. It is a limited part of the total benefits but the author would receive something after the costs of publishing the book.
Dear Mariano Ruiz Espejo, It is not that the author submits a valuable article and the editor should pay !! Kindly think in this way:
Author submits an article along with money. In exchange, Editor publishes the article. Editor indexes the article in different Scholarly websites. This is going to contribute to Citations.This will promote widespread reach of research. The Research Community is definitely going to grow.New ideas are thus being shared
I believe its a healthy deal !!!!
Dear Christo Ananth,
In your planning, the authors must share their intellectual work and their money freely. But editors do not share these things, their work requires a previous reward which it is not compensated with good publications to sharers after always. It could be an inicuous planning with some or much of them.
The reason would be that the authors have their income from other sources and need publications to prosper, and this is an exploitable market for publishers and editors via do not do payments to authors.
Dear @Mariano, in your question you have stated "Why do journals' editors not pay to authors for publishing?". Have you probably mean "Why do journals' publishers not pay to authors for publishing"? Editors are paid sometimes by publishers.
Yes, Ljubomir, in my case I am editor and publisher, but I do not have incomes for this activity.
I think that the true reason of the Question is that the publisher and editor must obtain a benefit to live too while the authors have an income for other work as professor or researcher or others already.
Some good journals pay to selected authors for publishing in its publication, and help to a final presentation of the article in Figures and Images. Eventual aids are grateful always.
A reason is the necessity of publishing of the authors which is exploited by publishing companies, but do not seem logic that economic benefits of publications are for a part only, the editors-publishers, and not for authentic creators, the authors.
The intervention of states via taxes makes of the transactions an expensive way to the diffusion of science.
Publishers for the local magazines are paying for our contributions but in case of scientific publication we have to pay for publishing our scientific data. Some publisher propagating the impact factor ( which was not accepted by the scientific community) to attract the authors. Some times authors are in the state of confusion due to this type of advertisements. Publishers telling some thing for collecting amount . Finally we have no option.
Invited authors to publish in certain journals are paid, but it is an aid more than stable wages.
Laughs.... The publishers have taken advantage over the authors. They know that you must publish to be a successful researcher. It is well.
Authors have more or less secure income, but the editor and publisher depend of the success of their publication to have income.
Consider free prime matter the work of others is an error and an abuse. More error and abuse if one puts a price for their work to authors and clients.
Is authors' free labour is a part of academic culture?
An interesting approach to this question follows.
"Researchers not paid when their papers appear in academic journals, but they are generally expected to pay fees to handle some of the costs of publication. They also hand over their copyright to publishers, who thereafter act as if they had created it.
In addition, academics are expected to carry out other work for the publishers, as reviewers and editors, again without payment. An important facet of academic publishing is peer review. This is a vetting process applied to submitted papers that attempts to ensure that only high-quality work is published. It generally requires more than one referee. In addition, academics are often asked to work on editorial boards of academic journals, helping to set the overall objectives, and to deal with any issues that arise requiring their specialised knowledge. Again, all these activities require both time and rare skills, and academics generally receive no remuneration for supplying them.
They provide this free labour in part because doing so is an accepted part of academic culture. Researchers expect their own work to be peer-reviewed by colleagues, and therefore are generally willing to return the favour. They believe that providing all this work for free is the price they must pay in order to maintain an active research career..."
http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/06/what-is-open-access-free-sharing-of-all-human-knowledge/2/#h1
Journals editors do not pay to authors for the articles of their authorship because editors and publishers like a lucrative work too. It could not be a service to science and knowledge but firstly lucrative activity.
Because ones are more codicious than others for the act of publishing.
I do not know that a journal makes compatible lucrative purposes with service to the true science, but I could be mistaked.
It is a calculus do not pay when there is a necessity, but a work must be paid always. When there is not payer for a good work, there is injustice.
Dear Khan,
Journals receive from many authors. A solution is practiced in Italian, Spanish, etc. journals where the evaluation of a paper and its publication are usually free to authors. But with the principles of IF journals these virtues are in declive.
I understand to the editors when they do not pay to the authors, but I do not understand to the editors when they impose explicit or implicit taxes to authors for their work.
Dear friends, dear @Mariano, what do you think about the possibility of paying the authors in the future? Is it possible and feasible?
No, I do not believe in payments to authors as usual procedure because the economy is in intervention and it will not be beneficious for both parts.
I think that the payment to the good authors should be made via institutions as the own university, ministry of its competence, etc. The possibilities of doing justice with authors is very limited for a journal's editor or publisher if it is not subventionated.
Dear Khan,
As far as I know, the statement of Prof. Ruiz Espejo is true in the case of my country (Greece), too.
Dear Professor Peter Eyerer
You have a point. but nothing last for ever. The publishers success is fulled by the clamor of researchers to publish in their journals.
Film artists encountered the same problem, as many of them could not get work, so they stated a company called "united artists". Until the "united artists" also became the establishment, when the independent producers emerged.
until the value is given what is in the paper rather than where it has been published, nothing much can be done. I always challenge my colleagues to tell me how many papers pushed in high scoring journal have actually made any impact. But they have impacted the carrier of those who published in them. Publishers are not making exorbitant profits any way.
We do well to remember nothing succeed like success.
Dear Khan,
From your last answer, I see that Korea (South) is very attractive for someone with regard to research.
You wrote 'Korea in general and our university in particular is spending much money on research and development these days.' and 'Korean people are working hard and expect the same from foreigners.'.
What if the money for research are not enough, in my country, for native researchers in these days? Nevertheless, from my experience, here, in our University, (Agricultural University of Athens, Greece), we are continuing to work hard, too, as it can be confirmed from the large number of our publications to international Journals (mainly indexed in Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports).
Regards
I think the answer soul be obvious.
How many people read a journal article? Now compare that with how many people read the OK! or Hello magazine? Scientific journals are kept publishable by the library subscription. Even university professor don't buy them ( please correct me). Even most quality daily broad sheets are suffering from fall of readership.
The readership of Ok! or Hello magazines makes it possible for the publisher to pay celebrities to photograph them.
As American say, something should give way. As things stands publishing seintific journal require sacrifice, which is currently offers by the authors.
The best test of how important is a journal is to know how many individual subscribers they attract. When a journal can rely on its individual subscriber then the authors can claim their share of profit.
Because it is a principle of the economy to pay bad or do not pay what is abundant. But, in my opinion, this has conducted to a less level in the scientific publications.
Dear @Khan, it is not Aristotle, but @Aristidis! :) Let me go further.
Publishers should pay authors as much as their other employees!
There’s nothing to publish without writers, so why are they being pushed to extinction by their appalling pay?
https://www.theguardian.com/books/booksblog/2016/feb/11/publishers-should-pay-authors-as-much-as-their-other-employees
Dear Khan,
Obviously, your last answer refers to my last answer. Maybe you bear in mind Aristotle, our great Greek philosopher.
Thank you for the information. I will take a close look regarding the discipline of my interest.
PS: The attached links provide useful information about Aristotle, taking into account that the current year (2016) has been proclaimed by UNESCO as the Aristotle Anniversary Year (2400 years since his birth).
http://aristotleworldcongress2016.web.auth.gr/?q=en
http://www.grreporter.info/en/unesco_proclaims_2016_aristotle_anniversary_year/13773
I think it is a crime do not pay with justice the resources of others. I do not understand to have to pay when one teaches about his matter. Is this other manner of colonization?
Dear Khan,
The responsibility is of the codicious planning of some publishers and of the authors whom serve to these plannings. The correct solution is at hand of each one.
With internet technology, open peer review, and networking through RG, the journal publishers will not have their wrongful practices continued.
If the science is true, it should not be object of profit of ones against others.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Publishing