zlacker

> it seems clear that in the absence of the academic publishing industry, scholarship would be more widely available, not less

I am thinking of the newspaper industry. Their paywalls didn't work (most of them). Now, there is a lot more news of worse quality. It gives me pause.

It almost seems like a near perfect state — a world where Sci-Hub exists and the academic publishing industry. It's like having a thriving recording industry and Napster.

>>dr_dsh+(OP)
The declining quality of journalism comes from cultural tolerance of bad quality - otherwise, they could just have remained unpublished. In some Countries, newspapers receive public funding yet may not reach thresholds of quality for public use (in many top industrialized countries the press has disappointing international official raking).

Similarly, the interest towards openly accessible research results is public.

>>dr_dsh+(OP)
A world without an academic publishing industry is not a world without academics who group together and agree to coordinate peer review of new research. The difference between that world and this world is basically you get PDFs that have the default LaTeX template instead of the default Elsevir template. But you still downloaded it from the website of a group who coordinates peer reviews.

The difference between academic publishing and news publishing is that academic funding is separate from academic publishing funding. This means it is quite natural that you should have a website hosing content without ads or personal data sinks, so that the reputable publishers are more attractive than the non-reputable ones. (Funding or promotions are often given to people who have respected publications, but it's a separate process involving peer judgement. Impact is measured not by views, but by references - useless pseudoscientific research that would do well in the advertising market is kept separate.)

Moreover, the audience is completely different. Because they're not selling ad space, it doesn't matter if they get ten readers or ten thousand. Ordinary scientific literature is difficult to read for someone who hasn't been doing it since they were 18. News media is completely different: they are fundamentally funded by advertising (both in the preonline days and now), which means they need to maximise their audience.

In any case, we have the same problem now - so the same risk exist. Right now, it's much cheaper to produce fake scientific research, and if there's any appetite for it, it's now, when there's paywalls and unreasonable fees. If you could make a profit from distributing fake research, you should be doing it right now (and arguing for strong protection of IP), instead of waiting for the day when real research is less hamstrung than fake research in terms of distribution.

>>mdp202+A6
> In some Countries, newspapers receive public funding yet may not reach thresholds of quality for public use (in many top industrialized countries the press has disappointing international official raking).

I assume "raking" is a typo for "ranking", but I'm still not sure I understand your point.

The only official rankings for newspapers I'm aware of is circulation. Are you saying that a newspaper from say Ireland or Lithuania is of does not reach thresholds of quality for public use because they have a smaller target market than Fox News or Bild? (I doubt that's what you mean, but I can't identify an alternative meaning.)

What actually is a threshold of quality for public use?

>>squigg+lb
No, the size of the target market is certainly not an indicator of quality - on the contrary: an idealized public tends to enhance quality.

Rankings exist; a widespread one is the Press Freedom Index from Reporters Without Borders. If you check the 2021 ratings on the map¹, you will see that excellence is reserved to a few countries only - CostaRica, Portugal and Ireland fare better than the UK, France, Germany, the USA and Australia.

With "receiving public funding yet not reaching thresholds of quality for public use" it was meant that if the news organization receives public funding, its quality should reach some level well above that of an agency financially left to its own devices, and its quality should justify public investment. An entity receiving public funding is supposed to respond about its use - practices, outcomes etc.

¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Press_freedom_2021.svg

--

Now: the poster seemed to indicate a relation between "market" (number of buyers) and quality. The idea that information, commentary, analysis and research results and validation can be made akin to a "deregulated and for profit industry" (e.g. the music industry) is perplexing. Bread and water - privatized or not - must be accessible and not toxic, as part of societal organization. Less buyers' funding does not imply quality decrease, and free access to vital parts of knowledge is public concern.

>>mdp202+Wn
It is some time since you posted, and I suppose this thread will soon be closed, so I apologise for the late reply.

The Press Freedom Index ranks countries media landscapes, not newspapers. Therefore, it cannot be used to allocate funding. We can use it to bring awareness to failings in public policy in particular countries.

I did not indicate a relationship between market and quality; on the contrary, I attempted to repudiate such a notion through a reductio ad absurdam.

How do we measure quality? How can we prevent those who benefit from poor quality media, once in power, from tweaking the measurements to give it to their supporters. That is my question.