This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/jul/10/the-lucrative-business-of-science-publishing
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| The lucrative business of science publishing | The lucrative business of science publishing |
| (7 months later) | |
| Letters | |
| Mon 10 Jul 2017 18.41 BST | |
| Last modified on Mon 27 Nov 2017 20.25 GMT | |
| Share on Facebook | |
| Share on Twitter | |
| Share via Email | |
| View more sharing options | |
| Share on LinkedIn | |
| Share on Pinterest | |
| Share on Google+ | |
| Share on WhatsApp | |
| Share on Messenger | |
| Close | |
| Stephen Buranyi’s article on the lucrative business of academic publishing does not go far enough (How Robert Maxwell turned science publishing into a money machine, 27 June). At least academic researchers have access to published work through university subscriptions. However, an ordinary citizen must usually pay exorbitant fees to cross the publisher paywall for articles without open access. Some researchers even scatter their findings across multiple articles in more than one journal in order to boost their number of published papers. Although the number of open access articles is growing, this is not happening fast enough. Applicants for research grants usually budget for the cost of presenting results at conferences, but not for open access publication. It should be a condition of any government research grant that a full report of the findings be made publicly available on completion of the research.Dr John BirtillGuisborough, North Yorkshire | Stephen Buranyi’s article on the lucrative business of academic publishing does not go far enough (How Robert Maxwell turned science publishing into a money machine, 27 June). At least academic researchers have access to published work through university subscriptions. However, an ordinary citizen must usually pay exorbitant fees to cross the publisher paywall for articles without open access. Some researchers even scatter their findings across multiple articles in more than one journal in order to boost their number of published papers. Although the number of open access articles is growing, this is not happening fast enough. Applicants for research grants usually budget for the cost of presenting results at conferences, but not for open access publication. It should be a condition of any government research grant that a full report of the findings be made publicly available on completion of the research.Dr John BirtillGuisborough, North Yorkshire |
| • Stephen Buranyi rightly criticises the money extracted from scientific publishing by giant commercial publishers. But he ignores the large number of non-commercial journals run by learned societies, charities and university presses. Any profits made by those journals are re-invested in science and education, not paid to investors as dividends. Scientists and other academics can avoid lining the pockets of shareholders by choosing to publish their research in those non-commercial journals.Dr Keith T SmithCambridge | • Stephen Buranyi rightly criticises the money extracted from scientific publishing by giant commercial publishers. But he ignores the large number of non-commercial journals run by learned societies, charities and university presses. Any profits made by those journals are re-invested in science and education, not paid to investors as dividends. Scientists and other academics can avoid lining the pockets of shareholders by choosing to publish their research in those non-commercial journals.Dr Keith T SmithCambridge |
| • Not all scientific publishers follow the commercial model. Many journals are published by not-for-profit scientific societies. That does not mean that society journals do not generate revenues, but rather they funnel publication gains into scientific advancements; they fund scholarships, grants and travel awards that foster development of young scientists and international scientific collaborations. They are in partnership with the investigator, not the investigator’s adversary. | • Not all scientific publishers follow the commercial model. Many journals are published by not-for-profit scientific societies. That does not mean that society journals do not generate revenues, but rather they funnel publication gains into scientific advancements; they fund scholarships, grants and travel awards that foster development of young scientists and international scientific collaborations. They are in partnership with the investigator, not the investigator’s adversary. |
| Basic publishing costs borne by a publisher fall outside of the funding matrix addressed by Stephen Buryani, including the costs of hosting a journal and providing editing and page layout and graphic support for figures accompanying articles. Peer review management is costly, requiring custom online systems that allow for the review of the article and for the author and his/her reviewer to discuss suggested changes.Nina HoffmanAmerican Society of Hematology | Basic publishing costs borne by a publisher fall outside of the funding matrix addressed by Stephen Buryani, including the costs of hosting a journal and providing editing and page layout and graphic support for figures accompanying articles. Peer review management is costly, requiring custom online systems that allow for the review of the article and for the author and his/her reviewer to discuss suggested changes.Nina HoffmanAmerican Society of Hematology |
| • Stephen Buryani’s point that “scientific publishers manage to duck most of the actual costs” is misleading. Given that the percentage of costs attributable to content acquisition for most newspapers and magazines is 10% to 20%; and given the need for science journals to ensure the highly complex content they receive is appropriately peer-reviewed, absolutely correct, professionally revised for maximum reader comprehension, not plagiarised and so on, is “free content” really a substantial cost saving? | • Stephen Buryani’s point that “scientific publishers manage to duck most of the actual costs” is misleading. Given that the percentage of costs attributable to content acquisition for most newspapers and magazines is 10% to 20%; and given the need for science journals to ensure the highly complex content they receive is appropriately peer-reviewed, absolutely correct, professionally revised for maximum reader comprehension, not plagiarised and so on, is “free content” really a substantial cost saving? |
| True, the profitability of international science journal publishers is high. And there is cause for concern, even though we don’t blink an eye at the profits of Apple, Google and Microsoft. But as things stand, the attempt by open access advocates to dislodge all subscription-based journals is a consumer advocacy movement to “decapitalise” journal publishing that has destabilised the creation of the knowledge record by championing a good idea without ensuring quality controls.Rowland LorimerSimon Fraser University, Canada | True, the profitability of international science journal publishers is high. And there is cause for concern, even though we don’t blink an eye at the profits of Apple, Google and Microsoft. But as things stand, the attempt by open access advocates to dislodge all subscription-based journals is a consumer advocacy movement to “decapitalise” journal publishing that has destabilised the creation of the knowledge record by championing a good idea without ensuring quality controls.Rowland LorimerSimon Fraser University, Canada |
| • Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com | • Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com |
| • Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters | • Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters |
| Higher education | |
| Peer review (book review series) | |
| Publishing | |
| letters | |
| Share on Facebook | |
| Share on Twitter | |
| Share via Email | |
| Share on LinkedIn | |
| Share on Pinterest | |
| Share on Google+ | |
| Share on WhatsApp | |
| Share on Messenger | |
| Reuse this content |