Hello Kev,

As I said, without peer review there is nothing scientific about a paper. I just really don't understand why we have to pay 1500 -5000 dollars to publish an article online! Do you really think they need this much money for processing an article and storing it online? If they are indeed charing so much, why don't they pay their reviewers since they are the back bone of a scientific article? Why should peer reviewers work for free when their editors/admins get paid for their time working for that publisher? 

And it is pretty clear now that these open access journals only care about money and not about science. Look at some of the articles published in Frontiers! What is the incentive to reject a paper when there is money to loose? 

If researchers can't see the utter foolishness of this business model and the necessity to revamp it,  I think science may not have a bright future.

Why can't the NIH or Cochrane come up with a better model? Why cant NIH/Cochrane have journals. If they care about research, why don't they care about research papers? Ultimately research comes out through scientific papers!

I am just thinking loud so I could be wrong. But we certainly need to think more about this approach to science.

On Sun, Aug 26, 2018 at 12:31 PM, Kev Hopayian <000023787331a88f-dmarc-[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Dear Anoop,

Archiving in a university repository or on Researchgate is permitted after a given period by many, though not all, journals.

You seem to envisage a different process, am I right? How would we get peer review without the mainstream journals?

Kev (Kevork) Hopayian
[log in to unmask]

On 26 Aug 2018, at 15:40, Anoop Balachandran <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

 A less expensive and equally accessible alternative exists—widespread self-archiving of peer-reviewed articles

---

To unsubscribe from the EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH&A=1