This extortion is inflicted by non corporal parasites.
And sorry the costs of copying and storing bits grows smaller every day, as it has since forever.
This extortion is inflicted by non corporal parasites.
And sorry the costs of copying and storing bits grows smaller every day, as it has since forever.
The solution to this problem seems to be to get rid of promotions based on these for profit publications.
If your research isn't open access, then it can't be taken into account for promotions or hiring decisions.
It doesn't take that long to count citations, which defuses the usual excuse for using impact factor as a metric. (And some really shitty journals have surprisingly high impact factors -- they just don't publish much of anything in a given year, e.g. Science Immunology has exactly one primary research article in its entire August 2018 issue!)
Ultimately, it's funders who decide what "counts", because indirects from grants (money money money) is the only real currency. You can publish once every five years in the Journal of Irreproducible Results, but if you have a $20M P01 for those five years, you're getting promoted anyways. So when Chan-Zuckerberg or the Gates foundation says "OA or nothing", then it matters. Universities will keep licking their balls until the purse strings tighten, but once that happens, hoo-eee! It's amazing how quick them OA pubs count for promotion. (Secret: it was never the publications.)
Not just that. At some universities professors can lose their jobs if they don't get enough funding within a year.
“I am of the opinion that you are struggling to fulfil the metrics of a Professorial post at Imperial College which include maintaining established funding in a programme of research with an attributable share of research spend of £200k p.a and must now start to give serious consideration as to whether you are performing at the expected level of a Professor at Imperial College."
http://www.dcscience.net/2014/12/23/some-experiences-of-life...