9 ms·

Some things, like dissemination of knowledge, are truly in the interest of all humanity. It seems criminal that a few hundred people at the publishing houses sh

by imglorp 11y ago

Some things, like dissemination of knowledge, are truly in the interest of all humanity. It seems criminal that a few hundred people at the publishing houses should benefit at the expense of billions' welfare.

pen2l 11y ago
I agree with you that knowledge should be accessible to all. But, do realize that there most certainly is value being contributed by journals who are making you pay. For example, the editorial work, the typesetting, the selection, the whole system, etc. So they do need a paycheck from somewhere. So, I think this is actually like the common software/music/movies piracy situation... but a lot better! My (simplified) feelings about piracy are: do it if you're dirt-poor, don't do it if you can easily afford it. By this account, Kanye was a d-bag for pirating.. whatever software he pirated, because he, of all people, should be able to afford it. A starving artist with lots of debts, in my opinion, can't be accused of doing a great moral wrong when he's stealing a thing which has an effective zero marginal cost (arguably). The biggest problem here is that... there do exist people like Kanye who really should pay for things but end up not doing so. What's different in this scenario is that... I am almost 100% certain that all institutions that should be paying... will be paying! I mean, can you imagine some Harvard or MIT lab skipping payment on the journals? No, that's just not going to happen. The Harvards and MITs of the world will keep paying... the rest -- the public, or schools in suffering areas and nations, who can't afford it as easily, will be able to get it using scihub. It works out wonderfully in this way.
- east2west 11y ago
  Journals do minimal typesetting, and practically no editorial work. Paper reviews are done by academics, free. Editors are mostly academics, not depending a paycheck from publishers. There is cost, like marketing cost, but none that justifies $35 per article to the general public.
  - chestervonwinch 11y ago
    Here's the breakdown of the current job postings at Elsevier (not to say that this reflects accurately how the $35 / article is divided up): * 112 IT * 10 customer service * 3 data analysis * 28 editorial * 3 accounting * 4 general MGMT * 3 HR, 35 marketing * 18 manufacturing * 22 product MGMT * 3 program MGMT I would really like to see an official breakdown of the cost per article and especially the processing cost paid by authors. edit: formatting.
  - pen2l 11y ago
    That's either a bad lie, or you don't understand how this works. As a small example: Science, Nature, and various other journals produce high quality videos (like this: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCv0aU2eKry3kdSTnFa8QAWA https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCv0aU2eKry3kdSTnFa8QAWA ). And they have many in-house designers and editors who do important work like identifying from a sea of work what is important and what is not, etc.
    - moyix 11y ago
      It's neither, I think it's just that different fields operate differently. In CS most papers are published in conferences. Authors do their own typesetting, editing, figure making, etc. Peer review is organized on a volunteer basis by the program chair, who is (as far as I know) not usually compensated for their efforts. This means we don't get many fancy videos unless we or our university's PR people make them, but it still seems to work fine for getting science done.
KKKKkkkk1 11y ago
While it is the scientists who are writing the papers and editing them, the journals provide a valuable service as intermediaries between the scientists. Whether this service is best provided "for free" or for profit is another question. In some fields, the leading journals are already published by not-for-profit organizations such as the ACM, but I am not sure that they are doing a better job than Springer or Elsevier. In a language that's understandable to the HN crowd, journals:scientists are as VCs:(founders + investors).
- mirimir 11y ago
  Does ACM sell individual papers? If so, what's the price?
  - jordigh 11y ago
    It's about the same as everyone else: about 15 USD per paper, e.g. https://dl.acm.org/purchase.cfm?id=2756548&CFID=761526954&CFTOKEN=47826433 https://dl.acm.org/purchase.cfm?id=2756548&CFID=761526954&CF... They also have a somewhat restrictive licensing on their software: http://www.acm.org/publications/policies/softwarecrnotice http://www.acm.org/publications/policies/softwarecrnotice This part is kind of weird, as they have a noncommercial clause on their copyrighted algorithms, which makes them non-free. On a slightly different note, I was somewhat saddened by how the International Lisp Conference talks were recorded but unavailable because the ACM will not allow their publication.
    - mirimir 11y ago
      How the hell can that be "non-profit"? Where is the money going? Free conferences in Dubai?
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
      - russell_h 11y ago
        The ACM publishes annual reports with a high level breakdown of their finances. The most recent one is here: https://www.acm.org/binaries/content/assets/about/annual-reports-current-fy/acmfy15.pdf https://www.acm.org/binaries/content/assets/about/annual-rep... The finances are on pages 12 and 13. The short version: they're spending money on all the things you'd expect, but they seem to be slightly cash flow positive and have accrued around $100m in net assets.
jfaucett 11y ago
"It seems criminal that a few hundred people at the publishing houses should benefit at the expense of billions' welfare" To me it doesn't seem criminal. It is criminal, for to keep knowledge in the hands of the few and privileged to the detriment of the majority of all humanity is a crime. But not only does the Industry keep this knowledge to itself, it prevents even those who directly fund it (tax payers in developed countries) from accessing it themselves. I honestly despise those journals who manipulate the current system for profit, just as I and I believe most anyone, would despise any organization or individual manipulating a system at the expense of the well-being of the many. And I laude sci-hub and Elbakyan for something I consider a service to humanity.

by imglorp 11y ago

pen2l 11y ago

I agree with you that knowledge should be accessible to all. But, do realize that there most certainly is value being contributed by journals who are making you pay. For example, the editorial work, the typesetting, the selection, the whole system, etc. So they do need a paycheck from somewhere. So, I think this is actually like the common software/music/movies piracy situation... but a lot better! My (simplified) feelings about piracy are: do it if you're dirt-poor, don't do it if you can easily afford it. By this account, Kanye was a d-bag for pirating.. whatever software he pirated, because he, of all people, should be able to afford it. A starving artist with lots of debts, in my opinion, can't be accused of doing a great moral wrong when he's stealing a thing which has an effective zero marginal cost (arguably). The biggest problem here is that... there do exist people like Kanye who really should pay for things but end up not doing so. What's different in this scenario is that... I am almost 100% certain that all institutions that should be paying... will be paying! I mean, can you imagine some Harvard or MIT lab skipping payment on the journals? No, that's just not going to happen. The Harvards and MITs of the world will keep paying... the rest -- the public, or schools in suffering areas and nations, who can't afford it as easily, will be able to get it using scihub. It works out wonderfully in this way.

east2west 11y ago
Journals do minimal typesetting, and practically no editorial work. Paper reviews are done by academics, free. Editors are mostly academics, not depending a paycheck from publishers. There is cost, like marketing cost, but none that justifies $35 per article to the general public.
- chestervonwinch 11y ago
  Here's the breakdown of the current job postings at Elsevier (not to say that this reflects accurately how the $35 / article is divided up): * 112 IT * 10 customer service * 3 data analysis * 28 editorial * 3 accounting * 4 general MGMT * 3 HR, 35 marketing * 18 manufacturing * 22 product MGMT * 3 program MGMT I would really like to see an official breakdown of the cost per article and especially the processing cost paid by authors. edit: formatting.
- pen2l 11y ago
  That's either a bad lie, or you don't understand how this works. As a small example: Science, Nature, and various other journals produce high quality videos (like this: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCv0aU2eKry3kdSTnFa8QAWA https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCv0aU2eKry3kdSTnFa8QAWA ). And they have many in-house designers and editors who do important work like identifying from a sea of work what is important and what is not, etc.
  - moyix 11y ago
    It's neither, I think it's just that different fields operate differently. In CS most papers are published in conferences. Authors do their own typesetting, editing, figure making, etc. Peer review is organized on a volunteer basis by the program chair, who is (as far as I know) not usually compensated for their efforts. This means we don't get many fancy videos unless we or our university's PR people make them, but it still seems to work fine for getting science done.

KKKKkkkk1 11y ago

While it is the scientists who are writing the papers and editing them, the journals provide a valuable service as intermediaries between the scientists. Whether this service is best provided "for free" or for profit is another question. In some fields, the leading journals are already published by not-for-profit organizations such as the ACM, but I am not sure that they are doing a better job than Springer or Elsevier. In a language that's understandable to the HN crowd, journals:scientists are as VCs:(founders + investors).

mirimir 11y ago
Does ACM sell individual papers? If so, what's the price?
- jordigh 11y ago
  It's about the same as everyone else: about 15 USD per paper, e.g. https://dl.acm.org/purchase.cfm?id=2756548&CFID=761526954&CFTOKEN=47826433 https://dl.acm.org/purchase.cfm?id=2756548&CFID=761526954&CF... They also have a somewhat restrictive licensing on their software: http://www.acm.org/publications/policies/softwarecrnotice http://www.acm.org/publications/policies/softwarecrnotice This part is kind of weird, as they have a noncommercial clause on their copyrighted algorithms, which makes them non-free. On a slightly different note, I was somewhat saddened by how the International Lisp Conference talks were recorded but unavailable because the ACM will not allow their publication.
  - mirimir 11y ago
    How the hell can that be "non-profit"? Where is the money going? Free conferences in Dubai?
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - russell_h 11y ago
      The ACM publishes annual reports with a high level breakdown of their finances. The most recent one is here: https://www.acm.org/binaries/content/assets/about/annual-reports-current-fy/acmfy15.pdf https://www.acm.org/binaries/content/assets/about/annual-rep... The finances are on pages 12 and 13. The short version: they're spending money on all the things you'd expect, but they seem to be slightly cash flow positive and have accrued around $100m in net assets.

jfaucett 11y ago

"It seems criminal that a few hundred people at the publishing houses should benefit at the expense of billions' welfare" To me it doesn't seem criminal. It is criminal, for to keep knowledge in the hands of the few and privileged to the detriment of the majority of all humanity is a crime. But not only does the Industry keep this knowledge to itself, it prevents even those who directly fund it (tax payers in developed countries) from accessing it themselves. I honestly despise those journals who manipulate the current system for profit, just as I and I believe most anyone, would despise any organization or individual manipulating a system at the expense of the well-being of the many. And I laude sci-hub and Elbakyan for something I consider a service to humanity.