How well does the current journal publishing model serve the scientific community relative to what it costs?

Answer Explanations

• 2

  user-672631
  What a pain
• 2

  user-842404
  There is a huge amount of volunteer effort from peer reviewers and editors that is required for high quality journals, but the lower quality journals proliferate because people pay to publish in them.
• 2

  user-935064
  The process is becoming less personal with more automated responses that often are not helpful and can be difficult to get answers to critical questions.
• 1 = Very poorly (costs far exceed value)

  user-477051
  Current journal publishing model is broken to the ground. Needs to full revision.
• 2

  user-504762
  open access is the future of publishing and the cost models need to be reviewed  for the journals 
• 2

  user-480186
  Normally, human work should be paid (is of some use). Current publishing model serves the busyness of publishing houses, information overload and proliferation of poor quality papers.
• 1 = Very poorly (costs far exceed value)

  user-541511
  The costs primarily fuel entrepreneurs rather than those seeking to benefit the scientific community. This is why open source costs more for the equivalent level of service, this is why reviewers are not paid for their expertise and time, this is why predatory journals exist.
• 2

  user-498547
  The current journal publishing model does not justify its high cost. Scientists provide scientific data and conduct peer reviews. However, scientists still have to pay high subscription and article processing charges. 
• 1 = Very poorly (costs far exceed value)

  user-890708
  文章的发表成本太高。
• 3

  user-616480
  The challenge is that there are so many researchers wanting to publish their results that the traditional publishing model for scientific research is struggling. However, the more commercial the process is, the more potential for the financial incentives to outweigh the scientific quality. 
• 2

  user-364988
  The paid publishing model is exploitative, and especially creates a way for predatory publishers. Besides, if the researcher is "well funded" and backed by a mechanism then their research is likely to get more published - creating an obvious bias in an 'advertisement' model - where an industry can push a certain agenda because of monetary power. Research that is tax funded and asks difficult or uncomfortable questions, will lag behind in this model.  
• 1 = Very poorly (costs far exceed value)

  user-789606
  Lots of work is put in to the process, from both authors and reviewers. This is time taken away from conducting research, and the money paid that goes into the pocket of publishing companies is not necessarily contributing to the scientific community. I am also unsure how well results reach general public this way. 
• 1 = Very poorly (costs far exceed value)

  user-434227
   The current publishing model is a form of rent-seeking. The scientific community creates most of the value, while publishers capture a disproportionate share of the rewards. 
• 4

  user-568782
  Costs are in order justified by the services provided. To note, each open access journal indicates its APC related fee.
• 2

  user-960476
  I'd rate it as 2. Peer review, editorial work, indexing, and archiving do add real value, so I wouldn't call the publishing system useless. But the way costs are structured doesn't really match what the scientific community needs, especially when so much of the research is publicly funded and so much of the reviewing is done for free by academics. High APCs and subscription fees can skew where people choose to publish and tie dissemination too closely to institutional resources instead of the quality of the science.
• 2

  user-722545
  The current model is not set up to serve researchers, it is set up as a business model. The profit margins of these journals speak for themselves.
• 1 = Very poorly (costs far exceed value)

  user-268617
  Costs include delay to publication and poor quality review due to lack of compensation.
• 1 = Very poorly (costs far exceed value)

  user-984622
  It is so hard to find high quality reviewers these days, and there is not really any incentive for reviewers to provide high-quality reviews.  One thing academic publishers could do is to provide adequate compensation, such as waived APCs for future publications in that journal.
• 5 = Very well (costs are justified by the services provided)

  user-78358
  The costs are justified
• 2

  user-883415
  Current publishing provides valuable peer review and dissemination, but high publication costs often exceed the value delivered to researchers.
  
  
• 1 = Very poorly (costs far exceed value)

  user-813332
  Publication of research results is a public good, but has been mangled up with salaries and career prospects to the detriment of the contribution of science to the community.
• 1 = Very poorly (costs far exceed value)

  user-242383
  Journals are making “almost free” money from the research scholars efforts. Scholars should be sharing their research results publicly.
• 2

  user-648105
  There are many issues - from the publication of least publishable elements and encouraging numbers rather than the full story.
• 1 = Very poorly (costs far exceed value)

  user-964797
  The current peer review journal models has gotten completely out of hand.  What originally started out as scientific communities of practice refereeing science within their own fields has morphed into a monopolistic and abusive publishing system.
• 3

  user-11803
  I believe that although the APC model encourages the dissemination of scientific information to be seen as a business, it is often useful for disseminating interesting research.
• 1 = Very poorly (costs far exceed value)

  user-114343
  Scientific Journals are bleeding the Universities in terms of publication costs. Due to this reason, most of the time even a novel research got no sight.
  
  
• 2

  user-862972
  I think we pay far more than we should. The reviewers don't get paid, the authors don't get paid. Only the editors and the publishing company ( along with their maintenance staff) get paid. Therefore, in principle, it should not cost what it does at the moment. It's way too much, e.g., 30-40 euros for an article for 48 hours, it's crazy.
• 1 = Very poorly (costs far exceed value)

  user-533989
  Vv
• 2

  user-188641
  The current journal publishing model is actively criticized for its high APCs