198

History. In the dark ages (i.e., before the internet), publishers provided a valuable service. If an author has a great idea, they want the whole world to read about it and the best way to do that is to get someone to publish their work. The publisher arranges for reviews, copyedits your work, and, most importantly, prints thousands of copies and sends them ...


128

Of course you can request one - just send an email. You'll brighten up the publisher's office for the afternoon, and they'll be chuckling all the way home. So just as long as you don't seriously expect to get your money back, you'll be fine. When you paid your fee, you were paying for access to read the paper. As long as that access was provided, then the ...


110

Academics aren't upset about not getting paid for refereeing/reviewing - they're upset because journals charge too much. There's really four points in the statement "academics do pretty much all the work for free and publishers get the money" Academics do most of the work Publishers do a comparatively small amount of work Publishers get the money Academics ...


79

Opinions might differ, but here is mine: as a regular reviewer for a bunch of journals, what impresses me is a resubmission that addresses whatever points I raise in my review in a thorough and convincing way, irrespective of whether the authors take one week or six months to write it up. The more seriously you take my review, the more seriously I will take ...


73

This depends entirely on the journal policy, which in turn tends to depend strongly on field. For example: In computer science and electrical engineering, many ACM and IEEE journals expect papers to be turned in using a format that is very close to publication and then re-format little if at all. For these journals, good mastery of LaTeX is a must. Many ...


71

You could try contacting the editor in chief of the journal to see if they could get the problem fixed. This worked for me when I had similar problems with a paper last year.


70

This is a scam. You are not the ones being scammed, however. The editors are proposing to scam your readers, with your assistance, making you scammers as well. Walk away before you damage your reputation.


70

Publishers want new editions so that they can make money selling copies of the new edition and reduce the market for used copies. The new edition might be significantly updated, but in many cases the updates are small. For textbooks in lower division general education courses, new editions come out as often as every three years. It's quite common for ...


67

Because they are incompetent. That's about it, really. But don't lump all publishers/journals as one - the typesetters for one journal might not be the same as that for another journal, even one published by the same publisher, and of course there are good and bad employees everywhere.


66

The short answer is: we let publishers profit off of our work because many of us are egocentrics seeking prestige. At least it was the major reason at the creation of the modern academic publishing system. The rest of us can do little to change this, since our careers depend on it. However, I think this could change soon since more and more academics are ...


62

Sounds like he's sticking to his moral principles, which is the best anyone can do. Maybe he could evangelize his opinion more to increase the impact of his crusade, but that's about it. I disagree with the insinuation that he may be doing his field a disservice, since moving away from the ancient publishing model is a good thing for any field in the long ...


62

There are a number of quite reputable journals that actually do give public "outstanding reviewer" awards, and their value (while not large) is non-trivial. If the journal announces their awards publicly online, as these tend to do, then there's no worry about faking a certificate or such. It's probably not going to win anybody a job, but it's another line ...


58

Ubiquity Press breaks down their £300 ($500) APC as follows: 38% indirect costs for things not related to the publishing of a single paper but which are needed for the business (£114 or $190) 34% covers editorial and production aspects, which appears to be the costs associated with producing the paper, managing submissions, responding to authors, preparing ...


50

Do not think about the journal where the paper comes from. Just forget about it for a while. Now, read the paper. Even better, be a reviewer for that paper. Evaluate it. Is it a good related work for you? Is it a not-so-good related work, so that you can criticize it? Does it help you to build some hypotheses, etc.? Then, just cite it. Otherwise, don't. ...


50

Whether or not this is a scam, it is completely unethical. Under no circumstances is someone entitled to a publication credit in exchange for "free" publication of a paper. Don't forget that many reputable journals do not charge publication fees. It may be entirely possible for you to get your paper published without such an arrangement, which will be ...


50

Researchers have refused to review for Elsevier, as part of the Cost of Knowledge boycott, which Objects to exorbitantly high prices; and Objects to measures that restrict free information. The initial success of the boycott was summarised in 2014 by Sir Timothy Gowers (Fields Medal recipient): A little over two years ago, the Cost of Knowledge ...


49

You can ask for anything you want, but you will not get a refund. The terms and condition of the site where you purchased it most likely clearly stated that it wasn't an option. One example from Taylor & Francis: The content in this site is provided "as is" and without warranties of any kind either express or implied. Taylor & Francis ...


48

Many journals are publishers' own products, "going solo" makes no sense. It's like asking why Gmail does not segregate from Google. In some cases, professional societies hire publishers to take care of their official publishing organ, I imagine your question relates to these cases. Otherwise, there have been cases of the entire editorial board leaving for ...


45

If you don't have the authority to change the textbook on your own, at least for your own section, then your target should be, not the publisher, but the person or committee that does have that happy power.* Show them this: http://aimath.org/textbooks/approved-textbooks/ and propose that you teach a section of your course using the appropriate open access ...


44

I agree with the other answers, but they are anecdotal, and you asked for some "definitive" answers to help you convince your colleagues and advisor. Here's what I found: IEEE None of the IEEE journals has a required charge for non-open access publications. The publication FAQ says: For a detailed listing of paper charges by publication, download the ...


44

I wouldn't worry too much about tact. There's enough information in your question to identify the journal, and it looks impressively bad, even by the dismal standards of junk journals. It's so terrible that I'd consider it unethical to be actively involved as an editor, and humiliating to be passively involved. Bringing this to the editors' attention ...


43

This varies substantially, depending on the sort of book, how well the author negotiated (each book involves an individually negotiated contract), the price of the book, etc. Based on one Springer contract I'm familiar with, here's a first approximation. I can't say for sure how representative it is, but it's at least one data point, and I'd guess it's ...


43

Actually, I'd be happy just to get some feedback from the editor about the quality of my review. Doesn't have to be every time, but I would really appreciate getting comments when I do a particularly helpful one and what was good about it. Similarly, I think Publons now has a 'rate this review' feature that allows editors and/or authors to score or give ...


41

First, you should probably publish in the same venues that you read and cite. Presumably those are reputable. Now to describe low-quality vanity publishers. Two essential characteristics are: The publication of very low quality material. This is usually immediately recognizable to any expert. Sometimes it's obvious to anyone; for example, read this ...


41

The main reason is inertia and lack of information, I think. Researchers are not really aware of the costs their institutions have to face to subscribe to journals. From their perspective, publishing and reading are mostly free. It is not always easy to tell whether you have access to a PDF file because of your university's subscriptions or because it is ...


41

Leaving aside arguments for and against the current system, here's what will happen if you --- as an individual academic --- are contacted by a publisher and attempt to charge a fee: You will most likely be contacted, not by a "publisher" per se, but by an editor, who is another hard-working academic getting little or no monetary compensation for their job. ...


40

This often happens when a document uses the CMYK color space and the black is set as (0,0,0,100). When you go print in a monochrome environment, the document's color information is converted to grayscale first. Because black ink on white paper can't actually create gray, a halftoning process is applied, where the shades of gray are hinted at by using a ...


39

I always use the following methods to get many inaccessible papers. Open Google Scholar. Search the title of the paper. Click see all versions (you can see many places where the same paper is available) Check one by one whether they are downloadable Another method, I always use when I really need an inaccessible paper, is just to write an e-mail to the ...


39

While one should avoid antagonizing editors where possible, I think it would be reasonable for you and your coauthors to respond with a matter-of-fact email that includes the following points: (1) one of the authors, namely yourself, is a native English speaker; (2) said author has re-read the revised manuscript, and did not find obvious defects in the ...


39

You attempted to use a crayon license, that is, modify the terms of an existing well-established license to better suit your needs. This is frowned upon, because it can cause legal complications. In particular, the license CC-BY-NC 4.0 license that you attached to your work states The Licensor shall not be bound by any additional or different terms or ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible