The true costs of research and publishing (2019)

Many other fields also suffer, maybe not from image right fees but from open access journal fees (many journals request $1000-$2500 if you want the PDF to be freely available on the Web). In some places, not all teaching is paid (Germany has a law that after passing one's habilitation - a sort of second Ph.D. thesis and exam that gives the venia legendi or right to teach -, in order not to lose it, one has to teach at least one hour per term every year, but there is no right for compensation; universities of applied sciences have teaching quota but preparing a lecture is not accounted for only holding it).

The situation is bad, but there won't be a solution because the system does not receive collective pressure to initiate change: instead, individuals are willing to pick up the cost, and if one drops out, there's 50 waiting in line to take their place.

In other fields, unions fight for the rights of workers; academics have not yet come up with the idea to team up and to take collective remedial action.

Most scientific research and publishing is paid for by grants, not by your institution's funding. It sounds like the author had failed to obtain a grant (or for some reason didn't apply for one); and attempting to do research without a grant is, of course, difficult and in the long run completely unsustainable.

It boils down to the need to communicate the immense value of cultural history to the public in order to garner support.

Quite to the contrary, this historical moment seems more dedicated to the destruction of cultural history in the service of a (purportedly) superior agenda.

So, what I understood is that universities are happy to reap the rewards from the research of their academics, but not help their academics financially to get their research done.

It seems to me that some research areas may yield benefits and recognition in academia, but their potential remains undervalued, and as such underfunded.

Sadly, I think it comes down to what has the broadest appeal or wow-factor to get some traction and recognition. A lot of publishing associated with research tends to be esoteric too, which may advance the field, but also fall behind in public recognition.

In a way, it makes sense if the costs associated with the rewards appear to be out of balance in the eyes of those delegating funds, so more work may be needed to better communicate the potential rewards.

Seems very specfic to one field of research that is pointed out in the article. Any other fields which suffer from the same?

Also we tend to forget that it also matters what you publish more than how often. Article lacks any comments on this.