Re:Matt Blaze: How ACM and IEEE Shake Down Science
by MichaelSalib on Tuesday March 01, 2011 @01:33PM
(#2276583)
I don't know where you get this.
From publishing an article in an IEEE journal? I mean, I did DARPA funded work in grad school and got it published in a journal. I understand very well that authors are generally paid. My point remains: they are not paid BY THE JOURNAL. From the journal's perspective, authors do not cost them anything.
The difference being that there are only 4 or 5 people in the world capable of producing or verifying the articles that appear in scientific journal.
And academic journals generally don't pay them a damn thing.
Re:Matt Blaze: How ACM and IEEE Shake Down Science
by streptomycin on Tuesday March 01, 2011 @02:01PM
(#2276706)
It's expensive to run a journal. PLoS isn't evil, but they still spend millions of dollars every year http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v441/n7096/full/441914a...
Re:Matt Blaze: How ACM and IEEE Shake Down Science
by chalst on Wednesday March 02, 2011 @04:52AM
(#2279024)
Other scholarly societies have very small overheads.
Re:Matt Blaze: How ACM and IEEE Shake Down Science
by pbiggar on Tuesday March 01, 2011 @05:05PM
(#2277407)
> I don't know where you get this. IEEE/ACM may not be paying them, but they are sure as hell getting paid to write the papers that go in those journals.
I'd like to know where you get this. ACM is paying nobody for writing papers. (I've published in ACM journals and conferences, btw).
I don't know where you get this. IEEE/ACM may not be paying them, but they are sure as hell getting paid to write the papers that go in those journals.
Does it cost more money to produce than Wikipedia?
The difference being that there are only 4 or 5 people in the world capable of producing or verifying the articles that appear in scientific journal.