@samuelbhfaure Il n'y a pas trente-six solutions: protester contre ce modèle économique en boycottant les revues qui y participent. Les chercheurs cessent de soumettre leurs textes et d'évaluer ceux des autres; les bibliothèques annulent leurs abonnements.
"Combined, the top 5 publishers account for >50% of all papers in 2013" (Larivière et al., 2015). https://t.co/vV7yBXumyg
@alice_ledda_ Darn spot on. Teaching bibliometry, I have a first lecture explaining the scientific literature business model. I use this paper a lot... I'll be adding this slide! https://t.co/nxfecqWWEu
@rschrobUK @acochran12733 @JohanRooryck @ashleydfarley @mikaellaakso @cOAlitionS_OA Though a clearly obvious situation, yes, it would be great to see some quantitative data on market consolidation. Last set I can recall seeing is from 2013 (pre-Holdren, pr
RT @kamlaash: Top five publishers have a market share of ~54% in 2013, from 15% in 1970s, coincides with decline of journals in the global…
RT @kamlaash: Top five publishers have a market share of ~54% in 2013, from 15% in 1970s, coincides with decline of journals in the global…
Top five publishers have a market share of ~54% in 2013, from 15% in 1970s, coincides with decline of journals in the global South. ALL "radical" journals are part of this racket. fml cf https://t.co/tHO9JlSUrv #northerndecolonizers!
Questa la pubblicazione di riferimento: "The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era", Larivière V., Haustein S., Mongeon P. (2015). PLoS ONE 10(6): e0127502. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0127502. https://t.co/ok4Tf4Tr69 #OpenAccess #Sciece #Sci
RT @johnhawks: New research in @PLOSONE: basically all the efficiencies gained by transferring scientific research outputs to the internet…
Eine Handvoll Verlage dominiert den Bereich der wissenschaftlichen Publikationen. 4/15 https://t.co/jRXEAGvmRS
@Disfosgen Sorry, hier lief gerade etwas schief https://t.co/CIxOMABkWc
RT @realsci_DE: Publication crisis https://t.co/Smemj8Qz1Y https://t.co/LaA8xiY9hp https://t.co/hznIub5CIq https://t.co/I8QLoEC7Tg https://…
RT @realsci_DE: Publication crisis https://t.co/Smemj8Qz1Y https://t.co/LaA8xiY9hp https://t.co/hznIub5CIq https://t.co/I8QLoEC7Tg https://…
@newsthatfits @WhatsnewonNZLII This is not to say publishers do not add value but to emphaise that without a free-access alternative we stengthen their monopoly (more correctly oligopoly). Evidence of the effect here: https://t.co/YmrqdCThGX
@mvetto La situazione è fuori controllo, vorrei avere la testa libera a sufficienza per fare un 🧵 dignitoso sulla questione (ho insegnato bibliometria). Sono fan del modello pubblichiamo qualunque cosa purché i metodi siano corretti. È vecchio ma val la pe
RT @Rando_matt: Fantastic meme and terrible truth, we need to do more and better #openscience #OpenAccess #scientificpublishing. There must…
RT @Rando_matt: Fantastic meme and terrible truth, we need to do more and better #openscience #OpenAccess #scientificpublishing. There must…
From my #Open list: The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era | PLOS ONE https://t.co/SaqJtqpedZ, see more https://t.co/ZGjzqBY5AW
RT @Rando_matt: Fantastic meme and terrible truth, we need to do more and better #openscience #OpenAccess #scientificpublishing. There must…
RT @Rando_matt: Fantastic meme and terrible truth, we need to do more and better #openscience #OpenAccess #scientificpublishing. There must…
RT @Rando_matt: Fantastic meme and terrible truth, we need to do more and better #openscience #OpenAccess #scientificpublishing. There must…
RT @Rando_matt: Fantastic meme and terrible truth, we need to do more and better #openscience #OpenAccess #scientificpublishing. There must…
RT @Rando_matt: Fantastic meme and terrible truth, we need to do more and better #openscience #OpenAccess #scientificpublishing. There must…
Fantastic meme and terrible truth, we need to do more and better #openscience #OpenAccess #scientificpublishing. There must be a better model, this is a good read to for status quo. https://t.co/iBmF3UdiEv. Aaron Schwartz ended up dying for his belief in o
RT @KHALEDSAQR: No we must ask ourselves what do we need publishers for?! This @PLOSONE paper presents a perfect description of the journa…
No we must ask ourselves what do we need publishers for?! This @PLOSONE paper presents a perfect description of the journal publishing industry crisis, one of the main challenges that the #DeSci movement is solving to fix science.. https://t.co/Lr9IacQPM
Dijital Dönemde Akademik Yayıncıların Oligopoly https://t.co/EkjoiSnJWY
@FizixLover @chippermist @nvltwins @ajiswriting The reason that sub journals exist and profit is that they are a very powerful cartel. https://t.co/pI7HUVHtiJ
According to a 2015 PLOS ONE study (linked below): ~50% of all scientific papers are published by 5 publishers. Time to democratize. Source: https://t.co/HvdwERtGsx
RT @AcademicsSay: The oligopoly of academic publishers in the digital era | @lariviev @PLOSONE http://t.co/iJdBh3GYVu
RT @AcademicsSay: The oligopoly of academic publishers in the digital era | @lariviev @PLOSONE http://t.co/iJdBh3GYVu
...and is increasingly dominated by just a few publishers: https://t.co/nwGBfB50Wm]
“The proportion of the scientific output published in journals under [commerical] ownership has risen steadily over the past 40 years, and even more so since the advent of the digital era. The value added, however, has not followed a similar trend.” https
@IvaPls
RT @AcademicsSay: The oligopoly of academic publishers in the digital era | @lariviev @PLOSONE http://t.co/iJdBh3GYVu
RT @AcademicsSay: The oligopoly of academic publishers in the digital era | @lariviev @PLOSONE http://t.co/iJdBh3GYVu
RT @AcademicsSay: The oligopoly of academic publishers in the digital era | @lariviev @PLOSONE http://t.co/iJdBh3GYVu
RT @AcademicsSay: The oligopoly of academic publishers in the digital era | @lariviev @PLOSONE http://t.co/iJdBh3GYVu
RT @AcademicsSay: The oligopoly of academic publishers in the digital era | @lariviev @PLOSONE http://t.co/iJdBh3GYVu
Article authors and reviewers do not receive money from the publisher. But why do research institutions perform peer reviews requested by publishers free of charge, while publishers take hefty subscription fees from research institutions? https://t.co/VPG3
RT @KyosukeIyama: 4/ 上記のプロセスで、論文筆者と査読者は出版社からお金を受け取っていません。 しかしなぜ研究機関は出版社から依頼された査読を無償で行っているのに、出版社は研究機関から高額の購読料を取っているのでしょうか? https://t.co/B8…
4/ 上記のプロセスで、論文筆者と査読者は出版社からお金を受け取っていません。 しかしなぜ研究機関は出版社から依頼された査読を無償で行っているのに、出版社は研究機関から高額の購読料を取っているのでしょうか? https://t.co/B87Q23ggNp
@kirtiprakash25 @stirling_julian @ElsevierConnect @PLOS @eLife @thePeerJ This is a bit "old" but worth taking a look anyway https://t.co/tOW9B9Dqno I doubt profit practices changed for the better over the years
#PLOSONE: The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era https://t.co/QbOsRxpvZM
@dudelbem Olha a margem de lucro das editoras! Está quase 50%! Não produzem conhecimento, cobram para publicar o produto, "contratam" revisores de graça, cobram para acessar o produto. É igual Uber! E é pior que Instagram, que pelo menos é de graça https:
@mattbrodhead Wow! Check out this article -- in 2013 the "Big Five" publishers produced more than 50% of the world's journal articles. I'm sure that figure has grown since then. Plus oligopoly is a cool word. https://t.co/C0fZiZ0vyA
@giorgiogilestro Agreed, but what would you have them do? When this is the status quo: https://t.co/s6MJrmH9m7 and https://t.co/NJcnytC6Jp
@NoahHaber This graph provided in https://t.co/lUssCFk5Gk tells a lot. https://t.co/AH5QWWRW0I
Source: https://t.co/GgJh625q3q A remarkable piece of work. Do read.
@electricarchaeo I first read the word oligarchy (well... oligopoly more precisely) in this context in Larivière 2015 ( https://t.co/eu5X9j2sbV ), maybe there is something inside cited for this idea that could lead you to what you're looking for?
El propósito último de Sci-Hub es acabar con el oligopolio de las grandes editoriales (Elsevier, Springer, Wiley Blackwell y Taylor Francis) que publican ~50% de la literatura científica 📈 y monetizan el acceso a la información (paper, 2013). https://t.co/
@schuetz_marcel Jupp, nicht zuletzt angetrieben vom grenzenlosen Gewinnstreben der großen Verlage: https://t.co/ju4ibhyafX Und gleichzeitig werden methodisch gründlicherer Studien, mit bescheidener Wortwahl & weniger reißerischen Ergebnissen genau de
(3) Tire suas próprias conclusões. (a ironia de postar um artigo acadêmico sobre isso) https://t.co/G5vkyGabwh
@cmalcolmkeating Surely not all but the biggest publishers are very profitable https://t.co/k9d7oCht4d
RT @saggiotipo: ACS is definitely part of the oligopoly https://t.co/BO7MiOURiu #LPForum21
@HGLeitch There must also be a Publisher Oligarchy Index (POI) to quantify the structure of power in academic publishing. P.S. Just found a somewhat relevant paper on oligopoly in scientific publishing: https://t.co/kFQaVW9e12
@wfrankenhuis1 Most of the review requests that I get from for-profit publishers are from these big 5:https://t.co/Qj4LVkBqqS Usually I just check who the journal is published by, and check if they are for-profit. Will let you know if I find a better reso
@FCriadoBoado @acorsin Esa superliga me temo que hace años que existe, y se llama #BigFive, aunque últimamente ha llegado alguna que quiere aumentar la familia https://t.co/MtrnkjXLAH
RT @familyunequal: This is lower than the concentration found by Larivière et al 2015, 50% in the top 5 (https://t.co/TYK6I9HJQT). They cou…
This is lower than the concentration found by Larivière et al 2015, 50% in the top 5 (https://t.co/TYK6I9HJQT). They counted papers, not journals. Couldn't find an update of that so I used titles, which is easier to get.
@MichelleArrow1 @FourRedShoes Yes like all the other research management systems - conscious bias. see from 2015: 'The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era'. https://t.co/9IKczL1DWe
@RaiiCorreia @alinemghilardi Algumas fontes caso queira se aprofundar: https://t.co/OyJ1LmgQ7y https://t.co/lfP0Gvkh8z https://t.co/tLvxnHNn5e https://t.co/qZYjNuZIJR https://t.co/z5t89h3zwa
@SDullien @BachmannRudi @RD_Ritter @haucap Und zwar zu Recht. Weil die Leistungen teils unterirdisch sind (z.B. Editing), dafür total überteuert (mehrere tausend $) und die Begutachtungsarbeit ja durch die Kollegen und nicht durch die Verlage geleistet wir
@RobFagan Be sure to support the small businesses... https://t.co/dKsNNAAh3T
RT @rkawhite: 99% prescient, Danny. The timing (1995) & your suggestion that publishers "work out some way to gain revenue...in earnest" re…
99% prescient, Danny. The timing (1995) & your suggestion that publishers "work out some way to gain revenue...in earnest" reminds me of Larivière et al (2015) The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era https://t.co/YmrqdCThGX - small publ
@realsci_DE Literaturempfehlung: 2) https://t.co/ju4ibhyafX 3) https://t.co/s6cyj1zUD9 4) https://t.co/TJYJqhZLo9 5) https://t.co/FDSK3qV2V0 6) https://t.co/V25ueh0FHb Sorry für doppelt 3) im vorherigen Tweet.
@volz_le @lakens E.g. this paper listed the five you named, but it looked at publications between 1973 ad 2013. https://t.co/t6fkWdxHLV
@cshperspectives @mbeisen The consolidation of journals into an oligopoly really took hold in the digital era beginning about 2000. This gave the publishers far greater market power and changed the economics dramatically https://t.co/j3svQfW09Z
5 publishers = 2/3 of Social Science papers. https://t.co/vea4NMK4c2 Get your sociology from an independent open access source!
In social sciences alone, up to 70% of papers came from the top 5 publishers alone. https://t.co/jgMnZsNeBL
RT @lapetitejuge: https://t.co/abZ1s87KEi democratizacao do conhecimento uma ova (nem na academia): 70% de artigos publicados na proprieda…
RT @PhilJaeker: @A_Aspuru_Guzik This one is getting more up-to-date than ever: https://t.co/ju4ibhyafX "Similarly high profit margins were…
@A_Aspuru_Guzik This one is getting more up-to-date than ever: https://t.co/ju4ibhyafX "Similarly high profit margins were obtained in 2012 by Springer Science+Business Media (35.0% ..." Similarly profitable as Pharma or Banking, thanks to public subsidi
@MichelleArrow1 @cosmicpinot Important to appreciate that the companies which rank also own journals. See: Larivière V, Haustein S, Mongeon P (2015) The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era. PLoS ONE 10(6): e0127502. https://t.co/9IKczL1DWe
@ArnavEsports isn't it 🤯? Read this https://t.co/iBRKiYEvgk for a start or https://t.co/AYeGcOwehY Supports nice profit margins https://t.co/aGSkNI5Oqd
@AdrianoAguzzi And I guess the Swiss public happily contributes with tax money so that such solid science can be read. Oh and they of course happily subsidize big publishing companies immense profits: https://t.co/ju4ibhyafX While for all scientists mone
@thoughtsofaphd You have all the right to be furious because this is basically socialism for the rich: https://t.co/ju4ibhyafX Check out the profit margins whether you have doubt the fees are just about "covering" their costs. I see really different numb
@professor_dave Don't let them fool you into thinking the fee is about covering cost. Companies don't just want to make even, they want profit and they squeeze it out from every participant in the scientific system including the taxpayer: https://t.co/ju4
RT @PhilJaeker: @bruin_bas If you need more proof that our collective scientific labour as well as taxpayer money is subsidizing already ov…
@bruin_bas If you need more proof that our collective scientific labour as well as taxpayer money is subsidizing already overly profitable publishing companies: https://t.co/ju4ibhyafX If you feel exploited and ripped of, it's because we all are. Because
@BioMickWatson @brembs @sennoma They are not doing more, they are ripping us of: https://t.co/ju4ibhyafX How would you explain or even try to justify the profit margins?
@UnaiVicario see also that https://t.co/u6BK1TEvF0
"Capitalisme académique": il y a ceux à qui l'internationalisation coûte cher, et ceux à qui ça rapporte gros. Je divulgache: la science n'est pas du bon côté de la barrière. Larivière et al. "The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era"(https
RT @johnhawks: New research in @PLOSONE: basically all the efficiencies gained by transferring scientific research outputs to the internet…
RT @johnhawks: New research in @PLOSONE: basically all the efficiencies gained by transferring scientific research outputs to the internet…
RT @johnhawks: New research in @PLOSONE: basically all the efficiencies gained by transferring scientific research outputs to the internet…
RT @johnhawks: New research in @PLOSONE: basically all the efficiencies gained by transferring scientific research outputs to the internet…
RT @johnhawks: New research in @PLOSONE: basically all the efficiencies gained by transferring scientific research outputs to the internet…
RT @johnhawks: New research in @PLOSONE: basically all the efficiencies gained by transferring scientific research outputs to the internet…
RT @johnhawks: New research in @PLOSONE: basically all the efficiencies gained by transferring scientific research outputs to the internet…
RT @johnhawks: New research in @PLOSONE: basically all the efficiencies gained by transferring scientific research outputs to the internet…
RT @johnhawks: New research in @PLOSONE: basically all the efficiencies gained by transferring scientific research outputs to the internet…
RT @johnhawks: New research in @PLOSONE: basically all the efficiencies gained by transferring scientific research outputs to the internet…