Nature $10K article processing charges: send the bill to the Gold OA proponents

Bjoern Brembs asked for political endorsement [archived] some years ago. I was among the people who gave him such support, as a scientist. I would like to retire this endorsement, because in my opinion the years which followed did not bring anything beneficial for OA.

Bjoern has two recent posts: Are Nature’s APCs ‘outrageous’ or ‘very attractive’? and High APCs are a feature, not a bug where he describes and react to the last surprise coming from the gilded Gold Open Access realm. Please read these comical posts.

Fact: Nature demands approx. $10K as article processing charges (APC) per unit of publication.

Reaction: proponents of green and gold OA are now surprised or they are not really surprised, even if they publicly supported the BOAI flawed definition of OA.

Of course this is no surprise! Authors, send your bills to the proponents of the Gold and Green OA movement.

The proponents of the OA system in the form of green (archival) and gold (publication) Open Access were predictably wrong. Over the years, their actions resulted in advantages for the publishers. You can see that by looking at the outcome of their fight. Isn’t is surprising? Not at all!

Moreover, even if, predictably, the ridicule of their proposals will fade into oblivion, these proposals became part of state policies.

But this is not over.

Notice that already there are similar preparations for Open Science which look to turn the hosting of the scientific bit into a big affair. Again, you will find about the same people who gave us this sad perversion of OA. You can find definitions and policies proposals in OS, with strange lapses concerning the applications of DRM, prices for bit hosting, and so on.

So next time send the hosting bills to these propagandists.

More details. I explained several times that the separation of OA into green (archival) and gold (publication) is a move against open access. A whole generation of researchers was betrayed by a coalition of publishers, librarians and academic managers.

This is not unseen. At the end of the 19th century, academic art passed by a revolution. Like in the actual science academic world, it was not important what the artist [researcher] create, but where it was published. The management of art created a monster: l’art pompier.

Presently, researchers are turned into content creators for publishers. The academic management selects the researchers by using numbers designed for the evaluation of journals.

The metadata (like the name of the journal) is more important than data (content of article).

Research is not this! Research is discovery.

Why should we be surprised, when a publication in Nature helps a lot with the researcher evaluation, which affects the distribution of research funds? Nature could ask $100K, could ask any price that you, but mostly your manager, agree to pay.

Why do you force researchers to pay them? this is the real question.

4 thoughts on “Nature $10K article processing charges: send the bill to the Gold OA proponents”

  1. Deception is an ubiquitous sort of evolutionary strategy. And researchers are easy to fool because they are busy doing their research. They are also replaceable parts of a machine, so it is possible to select for gullibility, selfishness, weakness of moral, ability to act and convince people, etc. With time, the wolves are turned into dogs, to the benefit of man.

  2. EDIT: shorter version.

    @joelsjogren yes, I understand you. but since at least 500 years science is a very high risk investment which delivered greatly. Research is not writing articles, is discovery.

    Or, research was turned into the economic activity of articles production. Of course that in time the selection favored statistically obedient article producers, so indeed researchers are to be blamed too.

    But the reason for this state is simple and dilution of the blame does not serve the advancement to a solution.

    The accent put on publishing messed the research activity, to the point of loosing the competitivity and the credibility of science.

    This situation can end if researchers are allowed to do science, instead of them being, as you write, domesticated into dogs.

    Model science into a commercial activity and you get that. A lack of vision. Like in Twain’s Prince and the Pauper, they crack nuts with the scepter, what can be wrong with that?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s