• BlushedPotatoPlayers@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    1 year ago

    It’s worse than that. Authors actually pay (up to several thousand dollars) to publish, the editors who find referees are doing this as a side job, so probably they’re not exactly overpaid either. Finally you have the anonymous referee, who not only doesn’t get paid, but they get literally zero recognition. Also, papers aren’t printed in journals any more, they are online only, so there’s no printing fee either, there’s only just server hosting costs, paying some people for language editing and final typesetting (in many fields authors must submit LaTeX manuscripts, basically ready for publishing). And profit of course.

    • maegul (he/they)@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yep, it’s a fucking embarrassment. Clearly science and academia stopped attracting our brightest and best a while ago or their egos are so fragile they’re as easy to manipulate as children. Either way, institutionally, very poor leaders and caretakers of institutions, which truly undermines the faith we can have in the quality of research they are doing.

      • kevin
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        I can understand why it seems the way. But the people doing academic research by and large could make a lot more money working less hard at some company, but choose instead to try to advance human knowledge.

        The incentives are just terrible. When I was a PhD student, I railed against this system, but when it came time to publish, I was overruled by my PI. And I know now that he was right - success is built off publication, and the best journals have this shitty model.

        I used to think that when I became boss, I wouldn’t participate in the bullshit, but if any of my trainees want a career in academia, that stance would be screwing them over. The rules need to come from the top, but the people at the top, almost by definition, are the ones that have prospered with the current system.

        • Sinnerman@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I used to think that when I became boss, I wouldn’t participate in the bullshit,

          You can’t change the system single-handedly overnight, but you can be active in your research community, e.g. you can suggest that conference proceedings be available for free online.

          Also, if your trainees publish in journals, just make sure to put your pre-prints on arxiv or somewhere similar for free.

          • kevin
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            I do these things. I also refuse to review for-profit journals and paper mills, post all of my code in open source repositories, and advocate for these practices whenever I get the chance. When I had a popular science blog over 10 years ago, I was writing about this stuff a bunch.

            But as long as hiring committees are scanning CVs for the number of Nature/Science/Cell journals, and granting agencies aren’t insisting on different practices, this shit will continue.

        • maegul (he/they)@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The rules need to come from the top, but the people at the top, almost by definition, are the ones that have prospered with the current system.

          And if these smart academically inclined people can’t reason about the merits of the system beyond whether it has worked for them, then they are as I accused them … unintelligent or childish.

          You speak of higher salaries outside of academia, but from what I’ve seen (where you shouldn’t presume I haven’t worked in academia) success in academia is its own reward with prestige that should not be underestimated.

          • kevin
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            And if these smart academically inclined people can’t reason about the merits of the system beyond whether it has worked for them, then they are as I accused them … unintelligent or childish.

            Nah, it’s really hard to notice things that are against your incentives to notice. And if all of the people around you are prospering in the same system, extra hard. The myth of meritocracy is extremely compelling, possibly to an even greater extent in academia than elsewhere.

            success in academia is its own reward with prestige that should not be underestimated.

            No doubt. And listen, I’m on the tenure track job market at this very moment, having said that last year was definitely going to be my last attempt. There’s some kind of cultish nature, all the more inextricable in that I can see it, and it doesn’t stop me.

            I guess my point is that it’s obvious to most of us that that success is extremely rare, and getting rarer. The thing that keeps me in it is the sense that I can do more good pursuing knowledge for knowledge’s sake than work that is easier and more remunerative but less fulfilling. Call that stupid or childish? Maybe 🤷.

            • maegul (he/they)@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yea we’re not disagreeing here.

              The myth of meritocracy is extremely compelling, possibly to an even greater extent in academia than elsewhere.

              This of essentially what I’m targeting in my dumb/childish accusation, especially in those with some job security or tenure and so have more power and ideally wisdom.

              I can do more good pursuing knowledge for knowledge’s sake than work that is easier and more remunerative but less fulfilling.

              That’s idealistic I’d say, and all the luck to you my friend.

              In the end though, my accusation is intentionally provocative and intentionally aimed at what academics take pride in because at some point, IMO, academia needs to see that they’re often embarrassing themselves and letting themselves down, maybe not individually, but at some level. And, beyond that, maybe not pursuing as much of the greater good as we would all like to think.

              I suspect academia might be pretty central to civilisation and the more corrupt it gets the more corruption leaks into the civilisation.

              Anyway. All the best to you. Hope you get what you’re looking for and don’t burn out from the system or anything like that. Cheers for the chat!!

    • Mothra
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Okay but who gets the 40 euros then? All goes for server maintenance costs?

      • sab@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Publishing houses who control the entire industry and whom you have to go through because they have the professional networks and publishing somewhere without “prestige” is literally worse than not publishing at all.

        It’s pretty fucked.