If so many scientists are such raging liberals, why don't

>>7754170
>what is arxiv
oompa loompa doompa di do

>>7754553
>arxiv
>While the arXiv does contain some dubious e-prints, such as those claiming to refute famous theorems or proving famous conjectures such as Fermat's last theorem using only high-school mathematics,

top kek

>>7754170
Tenure committees and granting agencies still see a publication in Science or Nature as recognition.

To a pretenured professor, recognition = grant dollars = continued job. The publication costs are often included in the grant budget.

Scientists dare not complain, since it's so easy to be blacklisted from funding agencies. Trust me.

File: 1353021439340.png (68KB, 222x262px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 222x262px

>>7754563
you're confused with vixra, also you sound like you totally don't know anything about publishing

>>7754611
So.. protest?

OP obviously isn't a scientist.

First off: very few people buy individual issues of journals. Those that you typically get individually are cheap. A year subscription to Science [digital] is $50 and pending affiliation print is either $50 or $99; an issue of Nature is about three fiddy.

Second: Publishing is a racket because they make the overwhelming majority of their money selling complete access to institutions. If Harvard wants to subscribe to JACS, e.g., it also has to subscribe to access every other ACS Journal. Publishers keep adding journals because they can then charge institutions more and more money to subscribe. Moreover, they try to come up with new journals to match the reputation of other journals. Org Lett, for example, more or less knocked Tetrahedron and Tet Lett off the map. ChemSci, Nature Chemistry, and Nature Communications are all meant to compete with JACS.

Lastly: the publisher is also in charge of copyright and peer review. The first is very important: an individual scientist doesn't need to defend the authenticity and originality of their work -- the journal handles that so nobody can scrape it up with a new name/title/etc and claim it as their own. Peer review is also important for big journals because it ensures that sensationalized garbage doesn't work its way into the journal. Moreover, it also refines perhaps shaky hypotheses such that everything published is as accurate as possible.

The fees are inconsequential.

>>7754650
Bruh, those are the cheaper ones. As you get more specialized, the price goes up. Some extremely specialized journals like "Tetrahedron" "Chemical Physics" and "Neuropharmacology" cost tens of thousands of dollars.

>>7754666
>Elsevier

plz go

PLOS One is a decent open access journal. They have some decent studies in there.

>>7754170
Most scientsts from well-off institutes simply don't come into contact with the problem. To them, this system 'just werks' because they don't see the exorbitant subscription fees.

There's a reason why fantastic initiatives like libgen and scihub originate in less well-off universities.

But there is progress. Recently it was decided that NSF-funded research should become freely available after two or so years, and more and more universities sign agreements to only publish in open-access journals.

And the world is not devoid of protest. See for example David Mumford's blog post on this travesty of a situation.

File: 1449967824143.png (934KB, 513x1117px) Image search: [Google]

934KB, 513x1117px

>>7754170
>that one time I thought I'd get a subscription
>wasn't allowed to get just 1 for the office
>had to subscribe to like $500 worth of shit to get just 1
>mfw

And, thas is why there were copies of "Field & Stream" in the office waiting room.

>tfw I pirate it now