Björn BrembsJan 22, 2024

In the light of recent publications, it doesn't hurt to go over a few simple calculations yet again:

"even when considering all services we don’t currently pay for, the true cost per paper would not exceed $100"

https://blog.joss.theoj.org/2019/06/cost-models-for-running-an-online-open-journal

This fits very well with what we have calculated:

https://f1000research.com/articles/10-20/v2
and of course many others as well (references in our paper). Remember, if someone tells you academic publishing costs more, they're not doing it right

#openscience #academicchatter

Cost models for running an online open journal | Journal of Open Source Software Blog

Blog for the Journal of Open Source Software • <a href='https://joss.theoj.org'>https://joss.theoj.org</a>

Show threadTimothy ElfenbeinJan 22, 2024

@brembs Björn, what it is going to take to get you to stop making these blithe universalist statements, lacking any nuance or seeming regard for the many ways that publishing happens?

Sure, many journals are well served by a low-touch / volunteer labor models. Many others are not. The question shouldn’t be “How cheap?” but “Does the form of publishing serve the goals of the intellectual community it serves?” This will take many different forms & levels of cost.

Show threadTimothy ElfenbeinJan 22, 2024

@brembs And yes, this is me explicitly saying “If someone tells you academic publishing should always cost $100 per article, they’re not doing it right.”

That’s different from saying “publishing *can* cost $100,” or even “*much more* of publishing would be served just as well at $100.” But you never add any qualifiers.

You think you’re sticking it to the commercial publishers w/ these statements. I think you’re sticking it to your fellow scholars w/ other publishing practices.

Show threadBjörn BrembsJan 22, 2024

@timelfen

At this time, probably about 90+% of what we pay scholarly publishers in total goes towards STEM publishers. It may be that the percentage is even larger, I'm just guessing.

STEM is also where they charge, on average, something around 4k for something we would normally only need 100 for.

So by recovering this waste, we get the money back such that non-STEM can pay whatever millions they want to spend, because we are talking billions.

And I'm already out of characters for this post

Show threadBjörn Brembs

@timelfen

So I apologize that I'm not adding a 2000 character disclaimer to my max 500 character posts, just for the fields who would stand to benefit greatly if STEM and related fields refused to waste billions.

Heck, I'm already cutting down on characters by replacing "STEM and related fields" with placeholders.

Jan 22, 2024 at 3:24pmWeb
Show threadBjörn BrembsJan 22, 2024

@timelfen

BTW, in this particular post, had I replaced "academic" with "STEM and related fields" I would have exceeded my word limit.

So I apologize again that I always use "academic" as a shorthand for "STEM and related fields who collectively make up the by far largest share of corporate publisher spending".

Show threadTimothy ElfenbeinJan 22, 2024

@brembs According to last STM Report (2020): Sciences ~$14b; Medical ~$13b; HSS ~ 4.5b

But this isn’t just abt STEM vs. HSS: Why do you assume the $100 model would serve all intellectual communities in STEM & Med well? Is higher-touch publishing & publishing that relies on paid labor unimaginable? You’re making this false dichotomy: it’s either extractive commercial or $100. There is so much happening in between these extremes, for justifiable reasons.

Show threadTimothy ElfenbeinJan 22, 2024
@brembs I’ve also never understood why you think all the money saved by pushing everyone to the $100 model would remain available for other publishing activities. Uni admin has not shown any deference to the library acquisitions budget: it would likely be slashed & the funds reapportioned.
Show threadBjörn BrembsJan 22, 2024

@timelfen

This is a constant fear and people have suggested many counter-measures in the last decade or so. One of them is spelled out in our paper:

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.230206

If, say, funders required sufficient infrastructure (as they already do, but mainly for non-digital infrastructure) in their eligibility criteria, instiutions would be forced to spend the money on the infrastructure we really need.

Show threadBjörn BrembsJan 22, 2024

@timelfen

If this digital infrastrucre is designed with cost-effectiveness in mind, there should be plenty left over for non-STEM, non-medical fields to make their demands heard and fulfilled.

Show threadBjörn BrembsJan 22, 2024

@timelfen

So about 86% in this calculation, I wasn't far off.

This affects primary research papers, which would work just fine if we wrote tham and then just clicked on "publish" to get them published - pretty much like a post on here, only usually with several authors.

One can always think about how to spend more, but I think when we talk taxpayer money, we should rather think about how to accomplish the same thing with less, rather than more money.

Show threadBjörn BrembsJan 22, 2024

@timelfen

Moreover, and more importantly, we waste money on texts, when we have this massive, massive need for data and code infrastructures. So the more we save on the texts, where money is being wasted, the more we have left over for code/data - and, of course, non-STEM, non-medical fields.

The more you save, the more is left over.

Show threadTimothy ElfenbeinJan 22, 2024

@brembs So there’s the empirical question: How much of research publishing fits the self-service “write then click” model? How much is better served by the mediation of labor as well as infrastructure? The normative question: Who gets to decide what “better served” means & how to evaluate it?

If researchers tell you that self-serve doesn’t work for their purposes, if your response is “It should & everything else is wasteful,” you’re illegitimately assuming normative control.

Show threadBjörn BrembsJan 22, 2024

@timelfen

Everyone we are talking about writes articles, not monographs or toots. All publishers accept only some digital formats and none paper any more. Submission software is so cumbersome, CS students tasked with evaluating them ask me, if their thesis is based on a trick question. Many publishers limit words, some even references.

Compared to current "normative control", the replacement we propose will feel like a liberation from the shackles of pre-digital history.

Show threadBjörn BrembsJan 22, 2024

@timelfen

Yes, granted, our replacement may not come with golden faucets or pearl necklaces, but

a) I'd find it hard to justify that given its not our money we're spending
b) It's still such a massive improvement over now, especially when integrating data and code is effortless, that nobody will want the legacy system back.

I don't think the perfect should be the enemy of the good here.

Show threadTimothy ElfenbeinJan 22, 2024
@brembs Golden faucets? This is how you rhetorically undermine your case Björn: using the language of technocratic dominance (everyone will be happy with our remake of the world), which requires dissent (of the decedent elites in the way of progress) to be minimized & hopefully eliminated (for the [singular, unitary, universal] good). Will a few eggs need breaking to make this wonderful omelette?
Show threadTimothy ElfenbeinJan 22, 2024
@brembs I’m talking about the limits of self-serve publishing (as the model for all), about when the labor needed to sustain publishing is better (more practically, economically, ethically) outsourced to other laborers, & most especially about scholarly communities actually having some say in how to best shape the publishing that support their specific purposes. We share the goal of reducing as much as possible the role of extractive walled-garden analytics companies, who undermine this.
Show threadBjörn BrembsJan 23, 2024

@timelfen

I'm not sure what you are referring to? We're not talking about brick-and-mortar publishing houses with printing presses inside where you can't really just add another press tomorrow if you need one.

Like I said, if we save enough money, there should be plenty money left for fields that really need the features that for the richest 86% would amount to golden faucets.

Show threadBjörn BrembsJan 23, 2024

@timelfen

I think it would be bordering on the unethical to insist on very expensive feratures for everyone, when only a small minority would really need them.

How could you justify this to tax payers?

"Oh, 90% don't really need the features you just spent 30 million on, but for 10%, their 3 million share really matters!"

So why not just spend 3 million on these features and spend the 27 million where they are really needed?

(I'm rounding the 86% and just made up the 30 million number.

Show threadBjörn BrembsJan 23, 2024

@timelfen

None of the features you lst as necessitating additional labor are must-haves for the primary litertaure of the fields we are talking about and only some of them are even nice-to-haves. So the golden faucet analogy seems very apt to me - for the fields that are paying 86% of the money.

Show threadBjörn BrembsJan 23, 2024

@timelfen

And precisely because none of what you mention is necessary (some even introduce more errors than they fix
https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/11441/how-should-i-respond-to-a-terrible-copyediting-job
https://extendedstudies.ucsd.edu/news-and-events/division-of-extended-studies-blog/february-2020/contrary-to-popular-belief,-copyeditors-do-make-mi
https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/81625/elsevier-production-team-messed-up-my-paper-what-should-i-do
https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/140521/journal-editor-made-bad-edits-to-my-accepted-paper-how-do-i-respond
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAcademia/comments/8i64gy/whats_the_worst_thing_an_editor_has_done_to_your/?rdt=37173
)
for these articles, there are no eggs being broken, on the contrary. Everthing about this whole process is so bad, that it sets a ridiculously low bar for improvement.

How should I respond to a terrible copyediting job?

I just received the galley proofs for an article which has been accepted to a well-regarded math journal. The copyediting is, quite frankly, terrible. The copyeditor has introduced dozens of

Academia Stack Exchange