And currently, that taxpayer money is going to for-profit companies. What I propose is better.
No, research money is going to researchers, publishers get (other) money for different reasons. The cost of maintaining journals would have to be paid as well, so journal subscription money would only go to different for-profit organizations. What you propose does not solve the problem of paywalls, it just moves them.
While often well-meaning, editors have almost no role in quality control.
Editors choose the reviewers, and actually do a pre-filtering of the submitted papers. The final decision (reject/revise/accept) on a paper is theirs, and sometimes can be different from the sum of the referee reports. So they do have a strong role in quality control, both in theory and in practice.
That is in hands of academics who review the work. So the review process is already independent of the funding agencies.
As it should be.
Again, publishing is already steered by a small group of people who are independent of the funding agencies, the reviewers.
Most academicians are reviewers, so they are no small group. And they do not steer publication, they just decide whether a paper should be rejected/revised/accepted. There's quite a difference.
What? The vast majority of funding agencies are non-profits who genuinely want to help the world.
You assume funding agencies are genuinely trying to help the world, but everybody else (editors/academicians/reviewers) are not. I think there's good and bad in both sides
They are motivated to produce research towards AIDS, alternative energy, etc.
I agree, but they depend on their employer, i.e., whoever is in power.
They are economically motivated? Relative to the for-profits who currently control the academic publishing world?
Not as greedy, that's out of question, but giving them all controls on who publishes would be dangerous. I do not defend publishers, I do strongly believe the current system is bad. I just think your solution is wrong, and that there are ways to make research really public without giving it in the hands of any of the players in the arena, especially those that might influence what is published and where. Paywalls are bad, but what you're proposing would lead to self-censorship.
University libraries are supported in part by taxpayer money. Which largely goes to pay for journal subscriptions (whose costs are rising far faster than inflation). So the taxpayer-money->private publisher conduit is a very real thing in our current system.
I'm saying the funding agencies need to create their own journals like they've already successfully done with HHMI/eLife.
It after you learn more about HHMI/eLife, and want to challenge their motivations or the success of their journal and can tell me a better solution I'm all ears. I suspect you wont though. It's a pretty rock solid organization and journal. And I know it intimately as my former boss, Erin O'Shea, runs HHMI and she is about as noble and committed to promoting good science as you could ever hope someone would be.
You said previously that "Science publishing needs to be coordinated by the major funding agencies.", a bit stronger than "I'm saying the funding agencies need to create their own journals".
I'm not challenging anyone's success, and I'm in no position to say it's not a rock-solid organization and journal. I'm only saying that forcing that ALL journal be run by funding agencies exposes research to the risk of being controlled by those who fund it, lest they don't get published.
Plus, while I don't doubt the dedication of your former boss, this is your opinion (hence inherently biased, though in good faith) and it is just one case you're mentioning. I won't bet this would happen all the time.
It's just one case but HHMI controls a endowment on par with NIH, $30B, and is about as influential an organization in the biomedical sciences as such exists in the world, so noting its success will be highly informative for other future attempts.
I'm also not saying existing journals should go away or that this prevents any other initiatives. I'm merely saying the funding agencies should create their own journals.
> No, research money is going to researchers, publishers get (other) money for different reasons.
Publishers do get money from tax payer money in two pays - (1) via research grants for publishing the article and (2) via university subscriptions to access the published article.
No, research money is going to researchers, publishers get (other) money for different reasons. The cost of maintaining journals would have to be paid as well, so journal subscription money would only go to different for-profit organizations. What you propose does not solve the problem of paywalls, it just moves them.
While often well-meaning, editors have almost no role in quality control.
Editors choose the reviewers, and actually do a pre-filtering of the submitted papers. The final decision (reject/revise/accept) on a paper is theirs, and sometimes can be different from the sum of the referee reports. So they do have a strong role in quality control, both in theory and in practice.
That is in hands of academics who review the work. So the review process is already independent of the funding agencies.
As it should be.
Again, publishing is already steered by a small group of people who are independent of the funding agencies, the reviewers.
Most academicians are reviewers, so they are no small group. And they do not steer publication, they just decide whether a paper should be rejected/revised/accepted. There's quite a difference.
What? The vast majority of funding agencies are non-profits who genuinely want to help the world.
You assume funding agencies are genuinely trying to help the world, but everybody else (editors/academicians/reviewers) are not. I think there's good and bad in both sides
They are motivated to produce research towards AIDS, alternative energy, etc.
I agree, but they depend on their employer, i.e., whoever is in power.
They are economically motivated? Relative to the for-profits who currently control the academic publishing world?
Not as greedy, that's out of question, but giving them all controls on who publishes would be dangerous. I do not defend publishers, I do strongly believe the current system is bad. I just think your solution is wrong, and that there are ways to make research really public without giving it in the hands of any of the players in the arena, especially those that might influence what is published and where. Paywalls are bad, but what you're proposing would lead to self-censorship.