The flava:
From 2019 to 2023, authors paid an estimated $8.3 billion for open access to six publishers. And critics, including Kharrazi, contend the article processing charge (APC) model creates incentives that are at odds with high-quality science: Since volume equals profit, the model favors quantity over quality. A recent Cambridge University Press report on the issue quoted one librarian: “[T]he journal’s interest in rejecting bad science is in direct conflict with its interest in maintaining revenue.”
The APC at Current Research in Environmental Sustainability, one of some 2,900 titles published by Elsevier, is $2,620. At the journal, Kharrazi had a front row view of the APC model’s effects, and he did not like what he saw. So long as a reviewer signed off, he told Undark, whatever it was — credible research, junk science, AI-generated text — the financial incentives were to publish. . . .
The article:
No comments:
Post a Comment