Timeline for Can I get a refund if I bought an article that contains a major flaw?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
44 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 26, 2016 at 8:46 | comment | added | puslet88 | I wonder if there would be some leeway in thinking about this in the way, that the article's abstract and contents don't match. As the abstract is not delivered because of the flaw, they might be blamed of false advertising? | |
| Nov 14, 2015 at 0:46 | comment | added | Taladris | @CapeCode: Therefore, what am I buying? The content of an academic paper seems to fit with definitions $1$ and $3$ of product in Wiktionary. | |
| Nov 13, 2015 at 21:47 | answer | added | user6726 | timeline score: 2 | |
| Nov 13, 2015 at 16:58 | answer | added | dwoz | timeline score: 2 | |
| Nov 13, 2015 at 15:19 | comment | added | Cape Code | @Taladris without going into the details of why commercial software development and research are two very different things, the content of an academic paper is not a product. At least it's not the "product" you are buying when you pay to download a paper. | |
| Nov 13, 2015 at 6:53 | comment | added | Taladris | @CapeCode: I would compare the situation to softwares with an error that makes it useless rather than not enjoying a movie/book. The producer/distributor of a movie cannot guarantee for sure that you will enjoy it. On the other hand, the review process is similar to the quality control or test phase of a software development. If the software is buggy because they missed an important error, then I am entitled to a refund (or a free correction if possible). The fact that the reviewers are not paid is their problem, not mine. | |
| Nov 12, 2015 at 14:08 | comment | added | Peter Bloem | @CapeCode You are not paying for the reviewer's time (in most cases), but you are paying for the review process. You are paying for the editor's time in finding reviewers, and badgering them. I mean, I don't personally think the publishers actually add any value, but they themselves certainly seem to think they're adding upwards of 1000$ of value per paper. | |
| Nov 12, 2015 at 13:11 | comment | added | Cape Code | @Peter you are not paying for peer review. Reviewers are chosen by the editorial board (i.e. not the publisher) and do not work for the publisher. | |
| Nov 12, 2015 at 11:26 | comment | added | Peter Bloem | This is different from not liking a book or a movie: one of the things you pay for (supposedly) is a proper peer-review process. If there is a glaring error that should have been caught by any reasonable referee, and the paper is useless as a result, you have, at least in principle, bought a faulty product. The claims in the abstract were used to advertise that product, and those claims were demonstrably false. | |
| Nov 11, 2015 at 19:02 | comment | added | reirab | As much as I really wish this were the case, no, you generally can't get a refund. | |
| Nov 11, 2015 at 14:24 | comment | added | eykanal | Please take extended discussion to Academia Chat. | |
| Nov 11, 2015 at 14:16 | history | protected | eykanal | ||
| Nov 11, 2015 at 12:47 | comment | added | Raphael | @CapeCode If they can not or refuse to provide this part of their service, then they are not fit to be (part of) the foundation upon which science rests. (Feel free to call this a political opinion; if that label is what it takes to make the statement, fine.) | |
| Nov 11, 2015 at 12:46 | comment | added | Raphael | @CapeCode What makes you think I exclude these people (authors and reviewers) from the responsibility? I most certainly do not. However, this question is about getting a refund, so we are talking about publishers only, as we pay these (ironically). And yes, I am of the firm opinion that they do hold some responsibility -- if not for the quality itself then for how they act when quality issues are made apparent. Withdrawal of wrongful papers, a public note so that people who missed the problem can learn of it (snowball!), and refunding (individual buyers) are the bare minimum, I think. | |
| Nov 11, 2015 at 12:23 | comment | added | Cape Code | @Raphael publishers provide a service, the content (that can be disappointing) is, like you said, paid largely by the taxpayer. Yet you choose to be angry at publishers instead of asking to sack the people who use deception to advance their career, or are just too sloppy to deserve their position. It's a political opinion to which you are entitled of course. | |
| Nov 11, 2015 at 12:17 | comment | added | Raphael | @CapeCode The analogy doesn't work. It's more like, I ask the phone company to connect me to my good friend John Doe, which is a service they (claim to) provide. I then get connected to a commercial line somewhere in south-east Asia where they try to sell me magic stones. Oh yes will I demand a refund for the outrageous sum that call cost! (The idea that outsourcing of the actual work to people paid by tax payers gives publishers a comfortable blanket of plausible deniability in cases of quality issues sickens me even more than the original topic.) | |
| Nov 11, 2015 at 11:41 | comment | added | gerrit | If I publish a paper and I retract it because it contains an error, do I get the fee I paid for publishing it back? | |
| Nov 11, 2015 at 11:40 | comment | added | gerrit | If I buy a book and I didn't like it, can I get a refund? | |
| Nov 11, 2015 at 9:40 | comment | added | Cape Code | @Raphael a telephone provider does not grantee that the conversation you will have on the phone will be enjoyable. You can shoot the messenger if you want. The issue remains that the perpetrator of the bad science are the authors and the people who didn't see it during peer review are academics, not the publisher's employees. | |
| Nov 11, 2015 at 9:23 | comment | added | Raphael | @CapeCode If there is no such guarantee by which we can hold the relevant parties accountable, not even for major flaws, then publishers and peer review are useless. | |
| Nov 11, 2015 at 9:15 | comment | added | Cape Code | @Raphael publishers never grantee correctness of the content. That would be economic suicide since the majority of scientific articles are wrong in a way or another. The publisher only provides access, if you're unhappy about the content it's the authors you should ask for a refund. | |
| Nov 11, 2015 at 8:53 | comment | added | Raphael | @CapeCode If I buy a chair online and it turns out to miss a leg, I'm sure as hell going to want a refund. If I buy an article from a publisher that certifies its correctness (that's pretty much the only real service they provide) and it turns out to be false (read: useless, arguably) then the same rules apply. Not only should I get a refund but every other prior buyer of this should get a note and a refund. (Once the mistake is established beyond doubt.) | |
| Nov 11, 2015 at 6:41 | comment | added | Cape Code | @Superbest I don't think it's appropriate to suggest trying not to pay for something that one bought. | |
| S Nov 11, 2015 at 5:04 | history | suggested | theforestecologist | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
making question easier to read and understand. fixing punctuation
|
| Nov 11, 2015 at 4:39 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Nov 11, 2015 at 5:04 | |||||
| Nov 11, 2015 at 0:43 | answer | added | Viktor Toth | timeline score: 17 | |
| Nov 10, 2015 at 21:31 | answer | added | Dmitry Savostyanov | timeline score: 1 | |
| Nov 10, 2015 at 21:20 | comment | added | Superbest | How did you buy? If a credit card, why not file a claim with the CC company? | |
| Nov 10, 2015 at 20:59 | comment | added | Nemo | You cannot get a refund, but you can get the privilege to work for free for the publisher and make them make more money out of your work, by submitting a paper to refute the wrong one. This is what paywalled journals' publishers do! | |
| Nov 10, 2015 at 20:45 | comment | added | Ghanima | @Hassassin, it might however be that consumer rights might not apply to commercial customers (aka non-customers) which one might be when accessing said paper at the workplace. (Not sure, need to check.) | |
| Nov 10, 2015 at 20:02 | comment | added | Hassassin | EU Consumer Rights Directive gives a 14-day time period to ask for refund for digital goods (including ebooks) unless the seller explicitly tells you that you will begin downloading it and lose your right to refund. | |
| Nov 10, 2015 at 19:11 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackAcademia/status/664158367334666240 | ||
| Nov 10, 2015 at 19:08 | answer | added | Corvus | timeline score: 10 | |
| Nov 10, 2015 at 19:03 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Nov 10, 2015 at 19:34 | |||||
| Nov 10, 2015 at 17:43 | comment | added | Ellen Spertus | @FranckDernoncourt If journals refunded fees if people didn't finish a paper, they would immediately go out of business. | |
| Nov 10, 2015 at 17:02 | history | edited | Franck Dernoncourt | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 4 characters in body; edited title
|
| Nov 10, 2015 at 17:01 | answer | added | Cape Code | timeline score: 50 | |
| Nov 10, 2015 at 16:44 | comment | added | Stephan Kolassa | @FranckDernoncourt: if you write to the publisher as @EnergyNumbers suggests, you could include on which page you stopped reading. I'm afraid it won't help you much, though. | |
| Nov 10, 2015 at 16:42 | comment | added | Franck Dernoncourt | @O.R.Mapper Let's assume I don't plan to write any article. | |
| Nov 10, 2015 at 16:39 | comment | added | Franck Dernoncourt | @StephanKolassa Yes for movies, some theaters have a policy to refund the customer if he leaves within X minutes after the movie starts. | |
| Nov 10, 2015 at 16:36 | comment | added | Stephan Kolassa | The analogous question at Movies.SE would of course be: can I get a refund on my movie tickets if I didn't like the film? | |
| Nov 10, 2015 at 16:33 | comment | added | O. R. Mapper | Wouldn't that refund hinge upon whether you can still use the article? If you found a flaw, as you describe, you might end up publishing a paper superseding the results from the flawed article, at which point the publisher might see no reason to refund anything. | |
| Nov 10, 2015 at 16:33 | answer | added | 410 gone | timeline score: 127 | |
| Nov 10, 2015 at 16:20 | history | asked | Franck Dernoncourt | CC BY-SA 3.0 |