Thread by @jasonHoyt

1/ This will be controversial, but the problem is scientists, not publishers. RE: theguardian.com/science/2017/j… @gdnlongread

@gdnlongread 2/ While the article may get the history of the problem accurate, it is going to perpetuate several myths abt the current root of the issue

@gdnlongread 3/ Scientists continuing to blame publishers, rather than the root, is pretty damn unscientific.

@gdnlongread 4/ Plenty of cheap or even free publishing solutions exist. @thePeerJ even provides lifetime publishing Open Access for almost nothing..but

@gdnlongread @thePeerJ 5/ …but very few scientists care about price when deciding where to publish

@gdnlongread @thePeerJ 6/ Scientists care about impressing grant and T&H committees, made up by other scientists...

@gdnlongread @thePeerJ 6b/..And the committees care about Impact Factor as a vanity metric for quality.

@gdnlongread @thePeerJ 7/ It is the tenure/hiring, NIH, NSF, grant committees, not publishers, that are the ones in power & need to make the changes.

@gdnlongread @thePeerJ 7b/ Demanding publishers do so will do little

@gdnlongread @thePeerJ 8/ So why aren’t the pitchforks out against the committees? There is only one group that can lead that charge, and it isn’t the publishers

@gdnlongread @thePeerJ 9/ Why aren’t committees looking at the merits of the article rather than the journal it is published in?

@gdnlongread @thePeerJ 10/ Why aren’t committees more proactive in saying publish in cheaper Open Access alternatives like PeerJ?

@gdnlongread @thePeerJ 11/ PeerJ started out at $99 for lifetime publishing. That would have saved gov’ts & funders $9 BILLION a year.

@gdnlongread @thePeerJ 12/ Yet zero funders & committees have yet to approach PeerJ since it was launched 5 years ago with any support, acknowledgment or promotion

@gdnlongread @thePeerJ 13/ Instead, Nobel Laureates & funders launch an elitist journal, perpetuate the Impact Factor, whilst hypocritically blaming CNS journals

@gdnlongread @thePeerJ 14/ Instead, they fund elitist “non-profit” journals that charge $2K an article yet still only cover half their costs. This makes no sense

@gdnlongread @thePeerJ 15/ Then scientists wonder why PeerJ had the gall to raise LIFETIME Open Access publishing from $99 to $399.

@gdnlongread @thePeerJ 15b/ The world doesn’t want nice things.

@gdnlongread @thePeerJ 16/ One of the myths is that academics do all the work. And daily I see an academic complain about journals & propose starting their own.

@gdnlongread @thePeerJ 17/ Well - I AM ONE of those academics who started their own. And let me say a peer-reviewed journal does not run itself.

@gdnlongread @thePeerJ 18/ At best you’d get a few pubs out per year with only volunteers. And the quality would be shite.

@gdnlongread @thePeerJ 19/ For starters - authors demand peer review to be timely. Counter to that, the reviewers don’t want to be rushed & get angry.

@gdnlongread @thePeerJ 20/ Without anyone chasing reviewers the world would never see reviews hit the light of day.

@gdnlongread @thePeerJ 21/ That’s fine then, the world doesn’t need millions of papers, just the ones people want to actually review without chasing.

@gdnlongread @thePeerJ 22/ The problem with that is the literature is full of papers now highly cited that were rejected many times.

@gdnlongread @thePeerJ 23/ So who is going to chase the reviewers for a million manuscripts? Volunteers? Nope. You have paid staff.

@gdnlongread @thePeerJ 24/ So how do you pay the staff? Either through grants, subscriptions, or Open Access fees.

@gdnlongread @thePeerJ 25/ So now the journal you started in protest of commercial publishers is in the same boat. But certainly you cld do it cheaper you say!

@gdnlongread @thePeerJ 26/ Cheaper than $99 for lifetime publishing like PeerJ?

@gdnlongread @thePeerJ 27/ Don’t forget long-term archiving storage, a stupid typeset PDF, cuz that’s what readers demand, etc etc.

@gdnlongread @thePeerJ 28/ Well screw it, they say. We’ll do preprints and have “overlay” journals for post-pub peer review.

@gdnlongread @thePeerJ 29/ Except preprints aren’t free either. Arxiv costs > $1M a year to operate as a non-profit.

@gdnlongread @thePeerJ 30/ And again, who is going to chase the reviewers for the preprint post-pub reviews? Volunteers? volunteers for 1 million+ preprints?

@gdnlongread @thePeerJ 31/ So again, when I see people complain about high cost of publishing I have to laugh. More like cry.

@gdnlongread @thePeerJ 32/ We have the solutions already, but little uptake. Who is to blame then?

@gdnlongread @thePeerJ 33/ When I read Tweets from academics that they won’t bother reading low Impact Factor journals. Who is to blame?

@gdnlongread @thePeerJ 34/ BTW - How unscientific is skipping a lit review just because the journal has a lower Impact Factor FFS?

@gdnlongread @thePeerJ 35/ The world doesn’t want nice things. We built a quid pro quo system of cheap Open Access with PeerJ.

@gdnlongread @thePeerJ 36/ We asked $99 lifetime members, if invited, to do a peer review to support the community. People complained about the quid pro quo.

@gdnlongread @thePeerJ 38/ The world could STILL have cheap publishing - if it is willing.

@gdnlongread @thePeerJ 39/ Elsevier et al are more than happy to keep taking the blame for the system. It’s a misdirection.

@gdnlongread @thePeerJ 40/ As long as scientists don’t start protesting T&H committees then Elsevier’s profit margins are safe.

@gdnlongread @thePeerJ 41/ Every time there is a new Elsevier boycott it lasts a week & then everyone forgets. They know this.

@gdnlongread @thePeerJ 42/ And they’re just cogs in the system like everyone else.