| Online: | |
| Visits: | |
| Stories: |
| Story Views | |
| Now: | |
| Last Hour: | |
| Last 24 Hours: | |
| Total: | |
Article Processing Charges [EvolutionBlog]
In yesterday’s post I mentioned that I wanted to use spring break to make progress on various writing and research projects.
One of those projects is based on one of the Darwin Day talks I gave in February, in which I discussed some of the mathematical arguments used by anti-evolutionists. In my preparations I gathered together far more material than I could possibly include in the talk itself, so I thought I would turn it all into a proper article. The title would be something like, “The Evolution Of Anti-Evolutionary Mathematics.” Partly the intent would be to gather together and refute the main lines of mathematical argument offered by anti-evolutionists, but I have somewhat more in mind. I want to trace out the way these arguments have evolved over time. For example, in looking at arguments based on probability theory we could begin with the very naive YEC style arguments about calculating the probability of creating a given DNA sequence by chance, then move on to Dembski’s use of info-jargon in an attempt to improve the argument, and perhaps culminate with Behe’s Edge of Evolution calculations. I think you can trace a similar development in the arguments based on the NFL theorems or thermodynamics.
Then I would point out some flaws common to all of these claims, talk a bit about mathematical modelling more generally, and perhaps contrast the anti-evolution arguments with the way mathematics actually gets deployed in evolutionary biology. Tie it all together with some anecdotes from my Among the Creationists days to show how rhetorically powerful these arguments are, and I think that could be an interesting article.
If I ever write my “Math and God” book, that would be one chapter.
Of course, as an academic it’s in my bones that after formulating an idea for a paper I immediately start thinking about where to send it. I could think of several possible venues, but the first one to come to mind was the Springer journal Evolution: Education and Outreach. Seems like it’s right up their alley. I have often benefited from reading articles that were published there, so I rather liked the idea of publishing something there myself.
I started browsing the website, focusing on the journal’s Aims and Scope, and paying particular attention to the instructions for authors. That’s when I came across this:
Open access publishing is not without costs. Evolution: Education and Outreach therefore levies an article-processing charge of £1045/$1635/€1330 for each article accepted for publication. If the submitting author’s institution is a Member, the cost of the article-processing charge is covered by the membership, and no further charge is payable. In the case of authors whose institutions are Supporter Members, however, a discounted article-processing charge is payable by the author. We routinely waive charges for authors from low-income countries. For other countries, article-processing charge waivers or discounts are granted on a case-by-case basis to authors with insufficient funds. Authors can request a waiver or discount during the submission process. For further details, see our article-processing charge page.
I thought I must have read that wrong. Sixteen hundred dollars is a lot of money. So much, in fact, that I would think that not many college professors could afford to pay it. And even if I did have that kind of money lying around, it would have to be a mighty prestigious journal before I would consider paying such a charge a sensible way of spending it.
I followed the link to the “article-processing charge” page. That business about members not having to pay seemed like an important point. After all, with more traditional journals you’re counting on your institution to pay for an expensive subscription. It turns out, though, that in the United States there are a mere 167 member institutions (out of more than 2500 four-year institutions and quite a few more two-year institutions). Most of those institutions are mere “supporting members,” which apparently only gets you a fifteen percent discount. That still leaves authors well over a thousand dollars in the hole.
So I sent an e-mail to the editorial office asking if most authors pay this charge out of pocket. I still find it simply incredible–seriously, who has that kind of money? I suspect I’m relatively flush compared to many potential authors, but even I blanche at the thought of writing such a big check. What about graduate students or post-docs? What about more prolific faculty members–are they paying sixteen hundred dollars a pop? The website mentions the possibility of waivers, but unless everyone gets one I am still puzzled.
The editorial office replied quickly, and I thank them for that. Alas, they did not answer my question. Instead they simply repeated the same information I found at the website without clarifying anything.
Maybe I’m naïve. I’ve mostly been writing books over the last several years, so maybe I’ve lost track of what journals are up to nowadays. Are article-processing charges of this magnitude typical? Are authors routinely paying so much just to see their work in print?
Source: http://scienceblogs.com/evolutionblog/2015/03/09/article-processing-charges/
