/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11757540
gotta love it

>look up some paper when i wasn't logged in
>they're charging $45 for access
>log in so i can read it through my uni
>it's literally a 2 page concept paper, like an abstract and conceptual with no experiment or results
i bet they don't give refunds either

>>10455623
>Pick a hot area of research
This part makes sense.
Suppose you came up with some super efficient matrix convolution technique that blows away everything before it.
Suppose you publish it in a computational mathematics journal. Only really good researchers who follow journals outside of their direct field will ever find and apply it, which could take decades, and you won't benefit much from it in the short term.
Now suppose you instead present your technique in the context of a hot research topic (e.g. signal processing, machine learning, etc.); because your implementation blows away everything before it, your contribution would quickly become known to millions, giving you prestige, lucrative job offers, grant offers, professorships, etc.

>>10455695
>implying transsexual theory isn't a fringe research topic
In all seriousness, have you ever considered that your dogged obsession with redpilling Internet forums on the looming threat of the globalist transsexual global warming white genocide boogeyman is a complete waste of your time?
InfoWars, Breitbart, etc. profit from your continued patronage while you continue to produce nothing of value.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/02/university-california-boycotts-publishing-giant-elsevier-over-journal-costs-and-open
>UC was being asked to pay for access to Elsevier's 2500+ journals, and THEN pay additional to make their own papers "open access" so the public can read the articles funded by their tax dollars
>negotiations broke down, so the University of California system will no longer pay $10m/year for access to journals

Some background if you don't know:
>In 2010, Elsevier’s scientific publishing arm reported profits of £724m on just over £2bn in revenue. It was a 36% margin – higher than Apple, Google, or Amazon posted that year.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business-scientific-publishing-bad-for-science

TLDR:
>lab scientists and phd students work their ass off to publish their findings, funded by public tax money and private contributions
>scientists and professors volunteer to edit & peer review papers, and run the journals, usually for free
>a publisher run by a billionaire tycoon rolls in and makes billions in profit reselling the papers
Is the journal scam finally ending?