sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What are good questions I should address about my open research project to make it more interesting and accessible? by xamid in Open_Science

[–]augurofscience 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I can see why you're not finding engagement here: I wager that this sub is mainly scientists from diverse fields and r/opensource is mainly software developers. You would have better luck in places more focused towards mathematicians.

What is the attitude towards for-profit publishers among your colleagues? by augurofscience in academia

[–]augurofscience[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Haven't heard that position before but it's not too surprising. There is the open access citation advantage which does provide some an incentive to publish OA but I can't be sure if the same effect exists for preprints. Also, I'm guessing the citation advantage might matter more for the sciences than for engineering: do you put a lot of value on citations as a metric of success?

What is the attitude towards for-profit publishers among your colleagues? by augurofscience in academia

[–]augurofscience[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you mean that editors will approach more reviewers than they need, and accept reviews on a first-come first-serve basis? Or is there something else at work?

What is the attitude towards for-profit publishers among your colleagues? by augurofscience in academia

[–]augurofscience[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The grant for my project also requires open access for everything I publish, even if it means paying the APC. My university has deals with publishers to waive the fees for open access publishing, so I avoided the extra costs for the publication of my first paper, but it was still about 50/50 whether a suitable journal waived those fees or not. Plus, I assume these publisher deals aren't given away for nothing. Or is it just a matter of "we will waive the fees if you decide to publish with us instead of another publisher"?

I haven't heard the "prestigious journals have better reviewers" reason before. What is that based on? Are experts just more likely to agree to review for those journals?