Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Is it fair that one doesn't get money for publications in journals

  1. Jun 10, 2012 #1
    I have raised this question, and got one interesting answer: 'should obama get money for every newspaper story about him?'
    However, I don't think that's a good analogy. I would personally think writing a book and getting money for it is more analogous to having a paper that you fully wrote on your own being published is a better analogy. the publisher is always somebody else, so why doesn't one get money for a publication with scientific articles vs a book?
    Perhaps these journals require much work for peer-review and thus demand more money?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 10, 2012 #2
    Researchers aren't paid for their papers for a variety of reasons, the three most important being...

    1) That was never the purpose of the literature to begin with
    2) Journals generally don't have any money with which to pay them
    3) Academics are already paid to produce and publish original research, so why would they need to be paid twice?
     
  4. Jun 10, 2012 #3
    how about independent researchers? how do they make their money?
     
  5. Jun 10, 2012 #4

    Pythagorean

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Researchers are paid to make the papers in the first place...
     
  6. Jun 10, 2012 #5

    Ygggdrasil

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    The same way other researchers make money: you propose a set of experiments to a funding agency, and if the funding agency thinks your ideas are worth pursuing, they will pay you to do those experiments and publish the results.
     
  7. Jun 10, 2012 #6
    do you perhaps know some of these agencies?
     
  8. Jun 10, 2012 #7

    Pythagorean

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    NSF and NIH are the big ones.
     
  9. Jun 10, 2012 #8

    Chi Meson

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

  10. Jun 10, 2012 #9
    National Science Foundation and National institution of health seem to be about medicine mainly? I am particularly interested in physics, philosophy or math, and perhaps inventorship.
     
  11. Jun 10, 2012 #10

    thanks. I assume I should look to private funded. It seems that it is mainly driven by profit, and not for knowledge for the sake of knowledge. So one would have to become an inventor to be in that kind of business.
     
  12. Jun 10, 2012 #11
    "A 2005 study in the journal Nature[10] surveyed 3247 US researchers who were all publicly funded (by the National Institutes of Health). Out of the scientists questioned, 15.5% admitted to altering design, methodology or results of their studies due to pressure of an external funding source. In a contemporary study published in the New England Journal of Medicine[citation needed], a similar proportion of the 107 medical research institutions questioned were willing to allow pharmaceutical companies sponsoring research to alter manuscripts according to their interests before they were submitted for publication."

    as I suspected a long time ago, especially with pharmaceutical industry...
     
  13. Jun 10, 2012 #12

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    What are your credentials? What is your academic background? Are you still in high school? All this makes a BIG difference in answering you since you seem to have no idea..
     
  14. Jun 10, 2012 #13
    gonna go to bed now. see ya
     
  15. Jun 10, 2012 #14
    I'm graduating bachelor psychology, but I'm planning to do bachelor in physics, and even aspire for a PhD all the way. But who knows what happens along the road, I'm not the easiest fellow :)
     
  16. Jun 10, 2012 #15
    you posted the guidelines, did I do something wrong?
     
  17. Jun 10, 2012 #16

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    In your other thread, oh yeah, but you know that. And you started this thread from your locked thread without permission.
     
  18. Jun 10, 2012 #17

    Pythagorean

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    only NIH (but there are a lot of applications to medical from physics and engineering)

    NSF is more general, with program areas like:
    physics
    chemistry
    math
    social
    behavioral
    biological
    engineering
    education
    computer science

    edit: oh yeah, I should mention I'm in the US.
     
  19. Jun 10, 2012 #18

    Chi Meson

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Only a few people, such as Dean Kamen, get to have the title of "inventor." So yes, you will need to invent something, not just have an idea. You need to have a working product that people will want to buy.

    Many more people are "researchers" who are checking out whether or not ideas are valid, or perhaps they are just looking through "piles of stuff" (like some pharmaceutical chemists) hoping to almost accidentally find something useful.

    Then there's "theoretical" research which, despite the general misconception of the word "theory," requires a lot of actual hard data to either spur your ideas, or back up your results.
     
  20. Jun 10, 2012 #19
    Because the purpose of publishing is not to make money. Maybe you would understand better if you were actually doing physics. Hardly anyone doing real science ever thinks about the idea of getting paid for publishing a paper.
     
  21. Jun 10, 2012 #20

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    They don't. My collaborators and I put in over over two years researching and publishing a paper on apparently-interacting galaxies. We didn't have to pay to get published (Astronomy and Astrophysics - a highly respected Springer journal), but we never made a penny. I don't know how you got the opinion that the writers of scientific papers get paid for their work.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Is it fair that one doesn't get money for publications in journals
Loading...