Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Media

What Does It Actually Cost To Publish a Scientific Paper? 166

ananyo writes "Nature has published an investigation into the real costs of publishing research after delving into the secretive, murky world of science publishing. Few publishers (open access or otherwise-including Nature Publishing Group) would reveal their profit margins, but they've pieced together a picture of how much it really costs to publish a paper by talking to analysts and insiders. Quoting from the piece: '"The costs of research publishing can be much lower than people think," agrees Peter Binfield, co-founder of one of the newest open-access journals, PeerJ, and formerly a publisher at PLoS. But publishers of subscription journals insist that such views are misguided — born of a failure to appreciate the value they add to the papers they publish, and to the research community as a whole. They say that their commercial operations are in fact quite efficient, so that if a switch to open-access publishing led scientists to drive down fees by choosing cheaper journals, it would undermine important values such as editorial quality.' There's also a comment piece by three open access advocates setting out what they think needs to happen next to push forward the movement as well as a piece arguing that 'Objections to the Creative Commons attribution license are straw men raised by parties who want open access to be as closed as possible.'"

Comment Re:Old problem (Score 1) 507

I have read it. And I think you drew the wrong lesson from the story. A big part of the story was that guy going nuts because he didn't know how to find balance in his life and obsessed over the minutia of "quality". I understand that point of view. I've been there. It's not a healthy way to think.

You can certainly define quality in a way that takes all concerns, including time, into account, but doing so defies the implication you made about the previous poster, that if he included getting something done by a deadline over other technical concerns, he was sacrificing "quality", and therefore was incompetent.

> Any developer who sacrifices quality is incompetent by definition...

What definition are you using? Again, unless using some contorted and specific definition of "quality" which you didn't even come close to explaining in your insult to the previous poster, I'll say it again: You're wrong.

Criticism should always be balanced with a measure of humility. At least consider that people who might make different value judgments than you might not always be wrong. And then consider the "quality" of your sweepingly insulting comment, and consider that in this context, that's the quality that matters.

Comment Re:Old problem (Score 4, Insightful) 507

While a virtual disregard for a deadline is a big part of the reason that Linux kernel is as good as it is, that does not mean that quality first is the only way to go, and even the Linux kernel has plenty warts that were compromises. A kernel requires a level of perfection that very few other types of software require. There is a vast range between that and, for example, a convenience shell script.

It's mature developers who both, know how to create high quality software, and also recognize the value of trading perfection for many other goals at the right time who are the most valuable. And Linus Torvalds is one of them. RMS probably is not.

I, and I'm sure many other highly skilled developers, find your assertion, that anyone who compromises quality as incompetent, insulting but more importantly, wrong.

Comment Long term impact (Score 1) 341

Of course the cynics will jump on this story and say "I told you so" like they do for everything. I'm starting to think that there are mostly only cynics left on Slashdot : /

But it's more sober to assess the value by looking at the long term impact. The technology will change as they become more popular and advancing battery technology will make batteries more efficient to produce. The *concept* of electric vehicles can produce a society that has less energy waste, and less pollution, even if the first generation of vehicles do not meet the goal.

With the understanding that electric vehicles will eventually (fairly quickly actually) have a positive impact, we can ignore the short term impact so that:
* Charging standards can be matured
* Charging stations can proliferate
* Battery technology can mature
* Motor technology can mature
* Laws can mature

Thank god the same group of cynics didn't get to have an effect on computer technology in it's infancy.

Comment Embedded Video (Score 1, Insightful) 137

The front page story style gave no hint that the video was to embedded and that users need to click through to see the video. I checked all three links assuming one of them would link to the video and figured that the posting editor had accidentally omitted it. It was only when I clicked through to see if anyone else was as confused as I was that I saw it was an embedded video.

The front page style should be changed to allow viewing embedded video from the front page, or at the very least the fact that there is an embedded video to be clicked through should be overtly indicated.

Comment Re:I'm so "high brow" [sic]... (Score 1) 171

Are you implying that the parent's post was intended to ridicule misogyny? I wholeheartedly disagree that this is a case of satire/irony.

In the case that it was, it's not how many women will take it. It produces a hostile environment for women who we already have too few of in our community, and it makes the younger guys in the crowd think that that's what we find to be "cool" and will do the same to fit in.

You may disagree, but I don't deserve your rebuke.

Comment Re:It's even worse than a lack of inflation (Score 1) 768

The BitCoin system has guaranteed deflation because lost hashes disppear from the monetary system forever

Deflation is actually built in intentionally if you look at it's production curve (and assume market growth). The claim is that deflation is not an issue, though I'm not sure how much/if this is backed up by theory. I have yet to hear a well supported argument about the merits a deflationary currency.

In addition, the current total value of the BitCoin currency (expessed in any normal monetary unit you'd care to name) is far too small to be a viable currency

Why do you say that? By what standard? It's total value is only important with regard to the size of the market which uses it. As long as its growth matches market growth, the value of the market vs other currencies should not be the thing that gets in the way.

It would have to deflate by several thousand percent to be any more than a niche currency

I think that's the hope.

Since no one would volunteer to be the victims of such deflation, BitC's are doomed to irrelevancy.

Who are the "victims" of deflation? Deflation results is effectively appreciation of the currency. Anyone holding them gains wealth. And that's effectively deflation problem in that people would rather hold than spend when holding effectively increases wealth.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Gravitation cannot be held responsible for people falling in love." -- Albert Einstein

Working...