Thread by @rsidd120

I'm sorry, WHERE does this sanctimony from the @StevenSalzberg1's and @mbeisen's come from? Who charges $3000 or $2500 for articles? @PLOS and @elife, that's who. YOU legitimized the principle. You're now haggling about the price. 1/
forbes.com/sites/stevensa…

$11500 is more than some scientists earn in a year? Well, $3000 could take a student on a lecture tour of the EU AND the US/Canada very comfortably. (And is more than the student would earn in 6 months in India.) 2/

Plus YOU people enabled predatory journals. In the old library-pays system there were no predatory journals because libraries have no incentive to pay to buy junk. But authors have an incentive to pay to publish junk. Sad but true. 3/

Yes, the Elsevier/SpringerNature/etc model is badly broken. But the PLOS APC model is WORSE. In trying to solve a problem you have created a monster which, if it grows, will shut out thousands of scientists from the publishing system because they don't have grant money. 4/

A few months ago I was on a TG on "access to knowledge and resources" as part of @IndiaDST's #STIP2020 process. I was struck by the vehemence of some members in opposing APCs in any form. But I see the point. This disease must not infect fields that are so far unaffected. 5/

What is the alternative? Return to society-based publishing. Let societies charge for membership, institutional or even countrywide. I hear that this is starting to be discussed by some well-known societies. Even PLOS is moving to a "community model". 6/

There may be other alternatives. But both existing models, profit-oriented subscription publishing and extortionate APC-based "open access" publishing, need to die. Up to us to come up with new models. /end of rant.