One of the most astounding aspects of academic research, to me, is the price of journal publication.
When you author a book, you earn some money. Not a lot, perhaps, but some. When you author a journal paper, not only do you not earn any money, but you pay the publisher several thousands USD in fees! For example, Nature: http://www.nature.com/ajg/open_access_faqs.html. Even worse, you must sign a copyright form that transfers ownership to the publisher.
I understand that there is a staff behind the scenes that puts these publications together -- editors, admin. staff, etc. -- and they need to be paid. But some journals have acquired such prestige over the years that they can name their price, and the manuscript submissions will keep coming. So perhaps these prices are not so surprising.
In the debate over which makes the most impact -- journal vs. conference paper -- most academics will say the same thing: journal, journal, journal. That message has been beaten into our heads. But in my opinion, we are entering a new period of transition similar to what newspapers have been facing. I think it is possible that conferences and journals with new subscription models will slowly usurp a share of manuscript submissions away from journals with traditional models. For example, in ACM and certain IEEE disciplines, conference papers already reign as the preferred publication format among researchers.
Of course, in other areas such as law and medicine, there is probably no hope. Things will remain the way they are.
I certainly hope so. I cannot for the life of me understand the economics of academic journals. They do a bit of editing and send out the papers for peer review. And that's about it, right? Where's all the money going?
"Curators" are important, certainly. I want respected people to select articles worthy of publication. I don't want them to then lock those articles up where they're only accessible to academics and those willing to pay obscene fees for individual access.
"In revenue, Elsevier accounts for 28% of the Reed Elsevier group (₤1.5b of 5.4 billions in 2006). In operating profits, it represents a bigger fraction of 44% (₤395 of 880 millions).[3] Adjusted operating profits have risen by 10% between 2005 and 2006."
This is not the only industry where education oriented companies account for a disproportionate percentage of the parent company's profits (hint: The Washington Post's Kaplan.)
I just wanted to make matters more precise. I don't want to beat your comment (I'm an academician too), but let me comment on another example you give:
Open Access is an option for most of the journal I know of, whereby the author pays the publisher up front to have content accessed by anyone free of charge. If an author does not want Open Access, he/she won't have to pay, but the article is no longer free. [Edit: put quotes in the right place]
Even worse, you must sign a copyright form that transfers ownership to the publisher.
True, and that is quite ridiculous, but many publishers are OK with you keeping a copy of the article (e.g. a final draft) on your webpage or on some pre-print or re-print websites.
In the debate over which makes the most impact -- journal vs. conference paper -- most academics will say the same thing: journal, journal, journal.
In Computer Science, this is not true. Publishing on conferences such as STOCS or FOCS is sometimes much more desirable than on any CS journal.
I understand that there is a staff behind the scenes that puts these publications together -- editors, admin. staff, etc. -- and they need to be paid. But some journals have acquired such prestige over the years that they can name their price, and the manuscript submissions will keep coming. So perhaps these prices are not so surprising.
I agree. I dream of a totally open, web-based publishing system where papers are submitted and reviewed by volunteers, and accepted (i.e. put officially on a publication list) only when above a certain threshold. Perhaps the reviewers could also receive comments by both the authors and the public. If both the referees and the authors have a chance of receiving feedback, it could benefit the paper.
Admins and staff would be replaced by the web-based system, while editors (when suggested that the paper has poor wording or language) could be outsourced to the author. [edit: typo]
"Of course, in other areas such as law and medicine, there is probably no hope. Things will remain the way they are."
Perhaps in law that will remain the case, but medicine is already ahead of other fields in the area of open access because publications that are the result of NIH-funded research are required by law to be openly accessible one year after initial publication. The journals have had no choice but to comply.
When you author a book, you earn some money. Not a lot, perhaps, but some. When you author a journal paper, not only do you not earn any money, but you pay the publisher several thousands USD in fees! For example, Nature: http://www.nature.com/ajg/open_access_faqs.html. Even worse, you must sign a copyright form that transfers ownership to the publisher.
I understand that there is a staff behind the scenes that puts these publications together -- editors, admin. staff, etc. -- and they need to be paid. But some journals have acquired such prestige over the years that they can name their price, and the manuscript submissions will keep coming. So perhaps these prices are not so surprising.
In the debate over which makes the most impact -- journal vs. conference paper -- most academics will say the same thing: journal, journal, journal. That message has been beaten into our heads. But in my opinion, we are entering a new period of transition similar to what newspapers have been facing. I think it is possible that conferences and journals with new subscription models will slowly usurp a share of manuscript submissions away from journals with traditional models. For example, in ACM and certain IEEE disciplines, conference papers already reign as the preferred publication format among researchers.
Of course, in other areas such as law and medicine, there is probably no hope. Things will remain the way they are.