zlacker

[parent] [thread] 8 comments
1. kriro+(OP)[view] [source] 2021-09-29 12:35:10
The real way to change anything (imo) is to get the tax payers more angry at the status quo and out-inovate the current journals.

Right now, I'm pretty sure most people don't care about academic publishing or even know what is going on. The scandal in my opinion is that a professor or phd candidate is paid by the state to do research and then the state has to pay again to license the contributions their employees made. Meanwhile the taxpayer who already paid for the research cannot access that research for free.

The main problem is that the academic system is a dog eat dog world with people clinging to their positions or fighting with all dirty tricks in the book to get tenure, reputation or funding. I'm not sure how to fix it.

The way to get to a better world probably leads through blood sweat and motivation by small groups. Run an open access journal, make it the best or highly regarded in your small niche. The more of these exist, the better.

Maybe that's an interesting area for an accelerator to pump some non-profit money into. Hire some people as editors, make the content available for free. Use startup strategies to turn it into a very feisty publisher where academics want to publish. Make sure the stuff in the journal is easy to cite and becomes cited often etc. Use a bowling pin strategy to start with one topic (probably something computer science related) and once that is excellent, branch out.

replies(3): >>sitkac+f5 >>Albert+vU >>throwa+lW
2. sitkac+f5[view] [source] 2021-09-29 13:13:40
>>kriro+(OP)
Since corporations have captured government, the solution is as you say, to "burn down" the old journals and rebuild them on top of arxiv, dblp, semantic scholar, git, etc. The ACM is slowly starting to open up, but it really needs to go all in and just be free for everyone and get a lower amount of of funding from way more sources.

You can run a better journal for free than what you can get from Elsevier. Throw in forums, video conferencing and shared docs and you can build entire academic structures in the cloud. Run a journal on a subreddit, papers on arxiv, video on meet (recordings posted to youtube), code in github, computation on colab notebooks. WeWork should offer wetlab space. ;)

Ideally we would have a storage commons where data that doesn't fit into the arxiv model of papers. Something like object storage but with some built in structure.

replies(2): >>nexuis+0o >>throwa+CY
◧◩
3. nexuis+0o[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-09-29 14:41:12
>>sitkac+f5
The problem is that this assumes academics want to change and use new methods to distribute their work. The primary goal of all academics is to secure more grants - what happens afterwards is an afterthought.
4. Albert+vU[view] [source] 2021-09-29 16:46:55
>>kriro+(OP)
I've said it before and a bunch of people objected to calling out Reed-Elsevier specifically. You know what? Too bad.

Reed-Elsevier. Reed-Elsevier. Reed-Elsevier.

Here's the summary of that article: "For the academic publishers, it is about extracting rents"

They don't want to sell Cokes at the beach; they want the official government monopoly on selling Cokes at the beach.

5. throwa+lW[view] [source] 2021-09-29 16:53:55
>>kriro+(OP)
> The scandal in my opinion is that a professor or phd candidate is paid by the state to do research and then the state has to pay again to license the contributions their employees made. Meanwhile the taxpayer who already paid for the research cannot access that research for free.

Ignoring the fact that you can indeed get the research for free if you e-mail the researchers... Who is going to pay for unlimited online access?

Somebody has to pay for it. It is not free to publish journals, or keep tens of thousands of them, with millions of articles, around indefinitely, for instant access by anyone on the web.

The only thing you can change is who is paying whom. Either you pay a publisher so that they maintain access. Or the people actually publishing an article pays the publisher (Open Access), in which case it's taxpayer money from the researchers' budget paying for it. Or you have lawmakers create some government subsidy for them to maintain access, or you have lawmakers create some government agency to maintain access. Other ways to pay include big private donors, universities, libraries, museums, endowments, foundations, societies, etc.

In all of those cases, someone will be paying. The question is, who, and how much? So far, nobody has offered to cough up all the dough. Maybe you can get Bezos, Bill and Buffet to chip in.

replies(2): >>deepbu+ea1 >>jhrmnn+oe1
◧◩
6. throwa+CY[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-09-29 17:01:36
>>sitkac+f5
> You can run a better journal for free than what you can get from Elsevier.

If you staff and pay for it.

You're also forgetting that the entire point of Journals is so that research institutions don't have to think about how to dole out the grant money. In addition to actually creating an entire new journal, you also have to make sure its "reputation" is better than the existing journals, or nobody will use it.

◧◩
7. deepbu+ea1[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-09-29 17:46:41
>>throwa+lW
you're phrasing it like web hosting is some gargantuan unheard of task.

> It is not free to publish journals, or keep tens of thousands of them, with millions of articles, around indefinitely, for instant access by anyone on the web.

it's not free but it's pretty cheap. you can pay a tiny fraction of what the public universities are currently paying for access to these journals to maintain a repository of scientific papers.

look at scihub, is it being funded by Bezos, Bill or Buffet? no. if a single person can host all those papers herself backed by only random donations, I don't think any government or hell, any university would have any trouble doing the same thing with marginal amount of support.

replies(1): >>throwa+yB1
◧◩
8. jhrmnn+oe1[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-09-29 18:03:25
>>throwa+lW
The money needed for the “unlimited online access” is a tiny fraction of what the publishing industry currently devours. Arxiv and its clones already now serve a large portion of the whole scientific output at a fraction of the cost compared to the journal publishers. So that’s not a problem.
◧◩◪
9. throwa+yB1[view] [source] [discussion] 2021-09-29 19:48:48
>>deepbu+ea1
If you do some research and then want to publish it in a journal, there is a large scope of work on the publishing side which includes hosting. Scihub just redistributes what journals have already spent the money to vet, edit, proof and publish. The "cost of access" is paying for all of the aforementioned work. So there is a lot more to do, and pay for, that is not being captured by people looking from the sidelines going "why is nobody giving me free cake?"

If all you want to do is say "we have pre-pubs on a free FTP server", sure, that's cheap as hell. But it doesn't replace the journals, it doesn't address research funding models, it doesn't move scientific progress forward.

[go to top]