this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2023
1692 points (99.1% liked)

Science Memes

10493 readers
2162 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.


Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 142 points 1 year ago (2 children)

To mention the obvious, it's the same network effect that keeps people on X and Reddit.

[–] [email protected] 77 points 1 year ago

Where there's a platform, there's enshitification.

[–] [email protected] 49 points 1 year ago (5 children)

To stay obvious, what's fascinating is that those networks are small, its members the most intelligent people available and they meet each other regularly in person at conferences.

Why do they accept the lock-in?

[–] Rolando 44 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Not every community does it this way. For example, computational linguistics put most of their conference proceedings online for free: https://aclanthology.org/. Deep learning researchers just publish a lot of stuff to arxiv.

Academic publishers like Elsevier are predatory scammers.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yep if something in CS and adjacent fields isn't open access (or there's a pre-print floating around somewhere) chances are it's a textbook, not worth reading, or is obscure/arcane and was written with a typewriter. Heck some of the best stuff is blogposts by people who don't happen to be in a publish or perish situation so why bother with journals. (Trouble with that, of course, is a lack of doi but what's archive.org for).

Meanwhile there's fields which can't even figure out TeX.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

They may be intelligent in their fields but that doesn’t mean they think thing through in every aspect of their lives. The status quo is the easiest thing to deal with they can devote more time to their careers/research

Unless their field is in social engineering, then yeah why are they going along with it?

[–] MooseLad 23 points 1 year ago

Because they need funding. Research projects take a lot of capital. And you'd need a lot of money to set up an independent journal, facilities, labs, staff, etc.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 year ago

Like the other response to this said, it's a little more complicated than "the status quo is easier" or "intelligent doesn't mean smart." This is a deeply ingrained system that's existed for a long time, and if you don't operate within it, you don't get to work in academia. You won't get to conduct your research to begin with, much less will you get to the point of publishing it without cooperating with these institutions. There are also powerful regulatory bodies like the APA and AMA who control just about everything in their field. You pretty much have to work for a university, and US universities are of course greedy and corrupt in their own right.

It would be like unseating the DNC, ending the electoral college, and expanding the two party system in America, but on a smaller scale. Plenty of Americans know that these things need to happen, but it's not something where you can just wake up one day and make the decision to overthrow the system as long as you just try real hard.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago

Why do they accept the lock-in?

Looks like there is no good answer if we view them as one entity which could simply make up it's mind. But it's a bunch of individuals, who probably disagree at least over details. Some probably have individual ambitions or pressures, some may struggle to pay their bills or satisfy their family or even themselves.

And for each individual on the fence, it's always an advantage to still publish to the network while hoping the rest of the group abstains and establishes a better platform in the meantime. Would you risk publishing your finally successful hard work to an immature platform, where it might not receive the attention it deserves?

And because they're smart, they know everyone else is thinking the same. Now we have reasonable doubts in something which relies on trust.

Basically, game theory. The system will find it's Nash equilibrium at a point where every individual move will worsen that individual's standing.

To break this spell, you need agreements and contracts. Someone needs to work on that, negotiate and lobby for it. But who? Would anyone who would benefit from that step away from their actual work and work on that meta-system instead? Would anyone who would not benefit from that system work on it? Maybe this could be a research project for scientists who already study these topics. Otherwise, I don't know.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 79 points 1 year ago (5 children)

In my discipline we only pay if we want the article to be open access. Are there journals that charge $1000 and still put articles behind a paywall?

[–] [email protected] 44 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

As far as I know, the big ones charge very high processing fees

[–] FinalRemix 60 points 1 year ago (2 children)

"Processing fees"

Ensuring the Docx file shows up right in PDF format.

[–] mkwt 23 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Well except a lot of the time it's LaTeX, and the journal already makes the authors check their tex files work with the journal's article class.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

I also don’t know how they come up with that BS

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] _bac 14 points 1 year ago
[–] Zeth0s 10 points 1 year ago

High impact factor journal are among those that ask fees depending on number of pages and figures. Or at least they used to when I used to do academic research

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 year ago

It’s $3000 for Association of Horticultural Scientists

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] mumblerfish 69 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Don't forget that sometimes you also do work for that journal, telling them if a paper is good enough or not for them, and also basically don't get payed.

[–] kameecoding 18 points 1 year ago

don't think you wanna get payed, unless you are a ship, but getting paid would be nice for them

[–] [email protected] 56 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (5 children)

Publish or perish.

Academic publishing is in a very weird place and is very, very political. Its true that authors have to pay to have their papers published in most journals or conferences after they've been accepted, but like all things academic, this is highly dependent on the field. Some universities will reimburse professors publishing costs, others need to pay out of pocket or with grant/public funding.

While its true that there are open-access journals and conferences without such costs, I would wager that most well known researchers would avoid such avenues of publication due to prestige. The larger journals and conferences have review boards where the top scientists in the world sit on them. As a potential published author with such an outlet, its a great honor to even be considered. Most researchers don't want to take the risk of going with a less prestigious outlet if it will run the risk of smearing their image or damaging their ability to publish in better outlets in the future.

Source: Was a Doctoral candidate that ran the whole ringer besides the dissertation.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 1 year ago (1 children)

While its true that there are open-access journals and conferences without such costs

To publish open access normally costs upwards of $3k USD as well. There's practically no point in the publishing chain where academics aren't getting screwed.

Let's also not forget that you have to review other people's papers for the journal for free.

[–] RagingRobot 19 points 1 year ago

Y'all are getting fucked

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 45 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's why scihub is so popular

[–] Speculater 20 points 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 year ago

This guy, Dr. Glaucomflecken also does a ton of skits, some funny, some critical. For his most recent ones he did a satirical set, 30 days of US Healthcare, and they were both funny and depressing. I did not know some of the stuff he mentioned in those. Worth the watch.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The getting to keep your job bit is not quite right. Often, one also has to go find their own funding. Sort of based on the publications, but not necessarily.

[–] CeeBee 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I think the implication is the whole "publish or perish" mindset in academia.

If you don't constantly publish something then your career and work is considered stagnant. At which point you lose out to other researchers, and effectively can't get paid for your work. Aka: you lose your job

At least that's how I understand it.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 year ago

Getting paid in exposure.

[–] BackOnMyBS 13 points 1 year ago (4 children)

What‽ I've published around 5 articles, and I've never paid anything. Is this something new?

[–] [email protected] 37 points 1 year ago (3 children)

It’s possible that the university paid your publication fees so that they didn’t end up on your desk. The university paid for mine, but there for sure were fees.

[–] Zeth0s 14 points 1 year ago

Or the PI via the grant

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago

Kinda fucked up that it's not only about being smart or having the tenacity to acquire these kind of jobs but that it's also depending on the altruistic mindset and resiliency of people. The pool of people having most if these traits is quite slim..

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Has there been an attempt at a charity-based distribution platform, á la Wikipedia?

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 year ago (12 children)

The challenge is the peer review system - not saying it can't be done, but facilitating quality reviews is often costly.

There has, however, been a push to publish articles as "open access" which costs more for the author but makes it publicly available free of charge to read.

Overall the system is still a pretty big scam, but would be difficult to make 100% free.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Publish it to social media and you get the prestige and points without paying the $1000!

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] danc4498 10 points 1 year ago (9 children)

After it’s published, do you get to do whatever you want with it? Like put it on your own website with a link to where it was published?

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago
[–] affiliate 11 points 1 year ago

no. but sometimes you can buy distribution rights from the journal for thousands of dollars!

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›