Why do scientists pay to publish their own research? And why is the peer review system considered broken?
Scientists dedicate countless hours to their research. Once all of that is done, they need to publish their findings! Simple? Nope.
Publishing in top-tier journals comes with an "Article Processing Charge" (APC), a fee that many researchers must cover themselves.
APCs in traditional journals can reach tens of thousands of dollars, especially with open-access options.
• Elsevier: $150–$6,000
• Springer Nature: $3,000–$11,000
• Wiley: $1,500–$5,000
For scientists on tight budgets or early-career researchers, these fees create a financial barrier to publishing 👩🔬🚧
This restricts who gets to share their work and slows scientific progress.
Science is a public good, financial pressure shouldn’t stand in the way of sharing knowledge! 1 reply
0 recast
2 reactions
After paying to publish, comes another deeply flawed system: peer review.
The peer review, essential for maintaining research quality, relies on unpaid volunteers, despite their crucial role in ensuring the integrity and quality of the publication.
Skilled academics spend hours reviewing, critiquing & providing feedback, yet receive no compensation.
The result? Without incentives, many lose motivation, leading to a reviewer shortage - causing delayed, inconsistent, or unreliable reviews that undermine research credibility.
The combination of financial barriers and a flawed peer review system creates a publishing system that is neither sustainable nor fair.
Research quality, accessibility, and progress are all at risk.
Platforms like @researchhubf and Coordination.Network (CN) are working to achieve this. Instead of pay-to-publish models, they use decentralized systems & token-based rewards to support researchers and incentivize high-quality peer review.
The future of science is open and accessible. 0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction