You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: A big DEAL for science – changing the game in scientific publishing
Elsevier really is the worst.
I have closely followed the course of events and discussions at my university and can vouch for your article with respect to the field of mathematics.
Of course you can always resort to publishing on arXiv but this kind of compromises the whole idea of peer review...
Well, I think pre-publishing + peer review in time would be ideal. As I understand it, this is more or less the way of the physicists, so they are a bit ahead of the other STEM disciplines.
This is a really complicated topic, as papers are ones way of "proving" that the science is valid, and it does not help to publish in a low impact-factor but open access journal, even if the science is good. When reviewed at job interviews etc. it often will be seen as inferior than having published in the established ones. I can remember a meeting where this was discussed and many of the senior scientists urged the PhDs to publish open access, but everything they showed from their projects was in paywalled, established journals.
There are exceptions of course, e.g. eLife has gained quite the reputation, and they publish open access. Change is coming on every front!