If you want to try to do a Fermi-ish estimate of the real cost per paper, I’d guess that coordinating peer review of all those articles probably requires a minimum of an hour per paper of the time of somebody who will expect to be paid for their time. Research that ends up with ambiguous and unreliable results still provides a cautionary tale, but it’s the least useful form of communication. Materials on this site are not peer-reviewed by arXiv. Can’t one, as a scientist/researcher, evaluate a paper on arxiv him/herself? Which is true– academic journal referees are not paid for refereeing papers. And even if you are an expert in the field capable of masterfully distinguishing all good papers from all bad papers, do you want to spend all your time on the alert for nonsense like that? They range from scary to deeply laughable. 4) If I actually have a general point, here (and I’m not sure that I do) it’s that perhaps neither of the main systems (high-profit organizations like Elsevier, vs high-anarchy systems like Arxiv) are working out, so perhaps it’s time to do something different. I have written many times on its shortcomings. My understanding is that Elsevier journals are still operating on the unpaid professorial/senior grad student review mode. But that’s only one thing out of the list of jobs performed by a typical journal. Somebody has to coordinate the sending of papers to referees, so they’re not all going to one person, or randomly going to blood enemies of the first author. Was academia to move to an everybody-in-arXiv model, alternative mechanisms for recognizing paper quality would appear. I’ve used results from 40 year old papers without having to check them for myself, I am glad someone was there to check them and give them the seal of approval. Reading referee reports takes time. Correction: here’s a case of a researcher who is expected by his university to spend 10 % of his time providing “service”. 3) Speaking of quality control and peer review, here’s a rather topical Peer review does not only happen at the refereeing stage. â Authors write the manuscript, make the figures, usually copyedit it and sometimes layout it. My point is it doesn’t need to be a choice between publishers-as-gate-keepers and sifting-through-garbage. Now, does this mean that Elsevier isn’t gouging people? Yeah, I’ve always been skeptical of the comparison to Arxiv, too– without the peer review, the value of the publication drops from journal, through conference, and does a dead-cat bounce off of self-published pamphlet. A PI of a lab where I had an intership got a paper for review on which he was a co-author. profits of a height that is really hard to believe, Go On Till You Come to the End; Then Stop. There are even awards to recognize exceptional achievement. â Authors improve the manuscript and resubmit it, at no cost to the publishers. Your U$S 100 estimate is spot-on. There are other people, such as some theoretical physicists and mathematicians (there was an anti-author-pays editorial in the October issue of the Notices of the American Mathematical Society), who, because of the low level of support for theoretical research in the US, and the fact that you can do theory with little or no grant support, think the present system is fine. The arxiv does do one of the things that we associate with academic journals, which is to distribute papers to a broad audience. The complaint isn’t that for-profit publishers make profits. As long as you’re comfortable with only experts being able to read the scientific literature, there’s no need for peer review. Look, publishers use their profit-buffer to finance the non-profitable part of science publishing. Area reviews are written to summarize and synthesize the numerous articles published in a field. Back in the days of snailmail submission these editorial assistants were often collocated with the titular editor (who normally had that job for three years before rotating off), and the assistants typically dealt with correspondence and the like. Well, if you don’t water the potatoes, in the end you’ll be the one suffering. Subscribe and get curated content to find the perfect journal that will give impetus to your research paper and your career. Why does an expert in a field need a journal gatekeeper to determine whether or not a submitted paper is worth reading/citing? If you want to keep your water, you better not plant the potatoes in the first place. Papers come in, they have to be tracked and assigned to editors. The service that journal editors provide is not free, and no amount of repeated assertion will make it free. There’s no copyediting or layout work done on the submissions. It is the case, however, that the subscription costs of society journals tend to be much lower than the subscription costs of journals from commercial publishers, so the high prices charged by some publishers have more to do with profits than anything else. If their profit margin shrinks, they’ll not declare bankrupt from one day to the next. Can you explain what is an arXiv publication? Register for comprehensive research tips and expert advice on English writing, journal publishing, good publication practices, trends in publishing, and a lot more. Have you ever read a copyright transfer notice? Citations occur or don’t. The arxiv does no peer review– as I understand it, new submissions get a quick glance to make sure they’re not barking mad, but that’s it. Yeah, a lot of work goes into the selection of reviewers. Plus also, the lobbying attempt to remove the public access requirements for work funded by NSF, NIH, etc. In my field at least, most editors are unpaid; the guy with the 250 $/a is the rare exception. This is typically not done, and cannot be done, by experts of that person’s community alone (it is easy to come up with reasons why that would not be a good idea). @cb: I’m not certain how much value publishing ambiguous results would add. The second, by Gene Sprouse and Joseph Serene, who are the editor in chief of Physical Review and the treasurer of the APS, respectively, make the point that, yes, running a journal costs money. Can you suggest journals which have a fast publication cycle? To submit your manuscript, you have to create an account on arXiv and upload the manuscript. This did not achieve the orders of magnitude savings one can dream of, but at the very least the money goes somewhere more appealing. In 2010, there were about 70,000 new papers added to arxiv.org and there were 30 million articles downloaded, while their annual budget was $420,000.