Re:“You pay to read research you fund. That’s ludicrous”
by maaku on Monday April 18, 2016 @11:33AM
(#11520711)
You get promotions and tenure for doing successful grant work that brings in money to the University. You get the best grants by publishing in Science and Nature. The government (main source of grants) shares the blame here.
Re:“You pay to read research you fund. That’s ludicrous”
by dubya on Monday April 18, 2016 @01:31PM
(#11521645)
Grants are not judged by government bureaucrats, but by committees of peer researchers. (At least for NSF grants; not sure about NIH or others).
Re:“You pay to read research you fund. That’s ludicrous”
by maaku on Monday April 18, 2016 @04:08PM
(#11522793)
Working under the direction of a grant agency. I know, I worked at two such institutes that managed $10m/yr grant money for planetary and biological science. In this case (NASA) the selection was done based on recommendations from a peer committee, but under directions from civil servants who had the final say, and there was a definite culture of favoritism for the prestigious closed journals. It was good for the institute too -- Science and Nature publications and associated PR raised our image in the eyes of our managers at HQ in Washington.
Re:“You pay to read research you fund. That’s ludicrous”
by sidrajaram on Monday April 18, 2016 @02:10PM
(#11521954)
NIH too.
Re:“You pay to read research you fund. That’s ludicrous”
by ufo on Monday April 18, 2016 @11:18AM
(#11520569)
Its not just the universities. At least in my country, universities are are ranked based on what journals their faculty publishes in and this affects the distribution of grants and other vital research money.
Imagine if every conference charged speakers for speaking, and in order to get promoted you had to speak at those conferences. It's the same thing. Except most software engineers are happy not paying to speak at conferences because their promo doesn't require it.