this post was submitted on 21 Apr 2024
1323 points (99.3% liked)

Science Memes

10940 readers
1705 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (4 children)

Well, I am sure there is a scam, because there's money involved and it's happening in this day and age, but talking is free, listening is free, yet the phone company makes both sides pay so they can talk and listen, and I wouldn't consider that a scam.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 6 months ago (3 children)

It's about the margins. If your phone contract was "100€/minute" that would be a scam. Also journals do have a lot more power than phone companies. Journals aren't a network of providers where you can choose whichever is cheapest.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Like I said I was expecting some sort of borderline legal scam. It's just that the meme only mentions that you have to pay them which in itself is not a scam.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 months ago

The meme leaves out the very important detail that most of the researchers working "for free" in the first panel are definitely getting paid, and usually by public funding (public universities and/or grants from taxpayer-funded institutions like NIH, NSF, etc.). That's a big part of what makes it a scam.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)