follow CCP

Recent blog entries
popular papers

Science Curiosity and Political Information Processing

What Is the "Science of Science Communication"?

Climate-Science Communication and the Measurement Problem

Ideology, Motivated Cognition, and Cognitive Reflection: An Experimental Study

'Ideology' or 'Situation Sense'? An Experimental Investigation of Motivated Reasoning and Professional Judgment

A Risky Science Communication Environment for Vaccines

Motivated Numeracy and Enlightened Self-Government

Making Climate Science Communication Evidence-based—All the Way Down 

Neutral Principles, Motivated Cognition, and Some Problems for Constitutional Law 

Cultural Cognition of Scientific Consensus

The Tragedy of the Risk-Perception Commons: Science Literacy and Climate Change

"They Saw a Protest": Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction 

Geoengineering and the Science Communication Environment: a Cross-Cultural Experiment

Fixing the Communications Failure

Why We Are Poles Apart on Climate Change

The Cognitively Illiberal State 

Who Fears the HPV Vaccine, Who Doesn't, and Why? An Experimental Study

Cultural Cognition of the Risks and Benefits of Nanotechnology

Whose Eyes Are You Going to Believe? An Empirical Examination of Scott v. Harris

Cultural Cognition and Public Policy

Culture, Cognition, and Consent: Who Perceives What, and Why, in "Acquaintance Rape" Cases

Culture and Identity-Protective Cognition: Explaining the White Male Effect

Fear of Democracy: A Cultural Evaluation of Sunstein on Risk

Cultural Cognition as a Conception of the Cultural Theory of Risk

« They've already gotten the memo! What the public (Rs & Ds) think "climate scientists believe" | Main | Response: An “externally-valid” approach to consensus messaging »

Authors: to assure no one can read your articles, publish in a Taylor & Francis journal!

They obviously have some exceptionally horrendous licensing policy, since even major university libraries do not have on-line access to T&F periodicals for 1 yr after article publication.

For sure $226 for the whole issue of Human & Eological Risk Assessment is a great deal, too!



PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (4)

Supply and demand, I'm afraid. If there's no demand, all the costs and overheads get loaded on to the small number of customers who want it.

I'm guessing it's talking about the same thing as this note?

June 21, 2014 | Unregistered CommenterNiV

Thanks for that, I thought I'd have some form of paranoia. It's incredible: whenever I try to acces a paper from a T&F journal, I can bet that I won't have access. How do they even get cited? Why don't these journals go extinct?

June 22, 2014 | Unregistered CommenterMartin

@Martin *&* @NiV:

@NiV is giving an answer to your question.

But I am proposing we *be* an answer to it.

Stop submitting papers to T&F so long as it does this. It will not be profitable for it to use this marketing scheme for long if scholars figure out that the value *they* get from publishing with it is about 10^-5 of what it would be if they published in some other company's journals.

June 22, 2014 | Registered CommenterDan Kahan

I doubt it's very profitable, anyway.

The price to buy a copy is roughly the price of producing a copy plus the fixed overheads divided by the number of copies sold. If you reduce their sales, they'll either raise their prices, or shut down. If you want them to lower prices, the way to do it is to encourage more universities to subscribe.

I imagine their business model is to fill a niche. Some journals publish very specialist topics that have a tiny audience, and that the bigger journals are therefore not interested in publishing. The few who are interested afford it by narrowing their range. Others make a business publishing bad papers that nobody else will publish, or is interested in reading, but which count towards publication counts. It's the price of setting "publish-or-perish"-style academic career/performance targets. Either way, the people who publish in them probably already know that they're not going to get much visibility for their papers. Presumably, they don't care. Or perhaps they do, but don't think Nature would be interested in their little paper...

But as you say, your actions are the "answer". You looked at the price and decided it wasn't worth it. That signals to the journal whether or not their activities are economically useful. If not enough people are interested in what they're offering, and they can make more profit doing something else, they'll shut down the journal and go do something different that people want more of. You don't need to do any more than that.

June 22, 2014 | Unregistered CommenterNiV

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Some HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>