4 ms·

The whole publication industry seems like a conspiracy that's hiding in plain sight for anyone to see. Yet it seems to be difficult to get rid of... and yet no

by devoply 10y ago

The whole publication industry seems like a conspiracy that's hiding in plain sight for anyone to see. Yet it seems to be difficult to get rid of... and yet no one quite knows why.

rspeer 10y ago
It's hard to get rid of the conspiracy because you have to become them to fight them. The journals promote a self-fulfilling number called an "impact factor". The people who boycott the gatekeeping publishers end up with publications with a lower impact factor, so they don't get as far in academia, so they will never end up on tenure review boards, and never get to suggest better criteria for evaluating scientists than their "impact factor". However, in some fields, people are quietly resisting the publishers by disobeying them, posting their own paywalled papers on arXiV or their personal web sites. I have never heard of a publisher suing a scientist over this. Strength in numbers.
- a3_nm 10y ago
  Note that putting your paywalled papers on arXiv or on your website is very often perfectly legal, because, as a result of open access lobbying, many non-open-access publishers allow exemptions for this in their copyright transfer agreements (sometimes under some conditions). You should check with your publisher for details (or look at the specific details of the copyright agreement), and there is a database of publisher policies http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/browse.php?letter=ALL&la=en&fIDnum=|&mode=simple http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/browse.php?letter=ALL&la=en&fI... (For anyone wondering, the reason why publishers routinely accept this is because they derive their revenue from university subscriptions, and the availability of even a large percentage of non-official article versions online apparently does not suffice to encourage libraries to unsubscribe.)
taneq 10y ago
I forget the exact wording of the quote I want, but it was something along the lines of "It is almost impossible to get someone to notice something if their continued employment depends on them not noticing it."
- winter_blue 10y ago
  > if their continued employment depends on them not noticing it A lot of these reviewers review for these journals for free, maybe because being known as a reviewer for a prestigious journal is beneficial. But their livelihood certainly doesn't depend on it. A lot of these major journals pocket all the profits from paywalls, and don't pay the scientists who do the hard work reviewing a dime. If there were a collective revolt, and all these scientists switched en masse to an open publishing system/platform, this scam would end then and there.
- adrienne 10y ago
  It's Upton Sinclair: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
  - taneq 10y ago
    That's the one, thanks!
midgetjones 10y ago
I'd call it a racket.

by devoply 10y ago

The whole publication industry seems like a conspiracy that's hiding in plain sight for anyone to see. Yet it seems to be difficult to get rid of... and yet no one quite knows why.

rspeer 10y ago

It's hard to get rid of the conspiracy because you have to become them to fight them. The journals promote a self-fulfilling number called an "impact factor". The people who boycott the gatekeeping publishers end up with publications with a lower impact factor, so they don't get as far in academia, so they will never end up on tenure review boards, and never get to suggest better criteria for evaluating scientists than their "impact factor". However, in some fields, people are quietly resisting the publishers by disobeying them, posting their own paywalled papers on arXiV or their personal web sites. I have never heard of a publisher suing a scientist over this. Strength in numbers.

a3_nm 10y ago
Note that putting your paywalled papers on arXiv or on your website is very often perfectly legal, because, as a result of open access lobbying, many non-open-access publishers allow exemptions for this in their copyright transfer agreements (sometimes under some conditions). You should check with your publisher for details (or look at the specific details of the copyright agreement), and there is a database of publisher policies http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/browse.php?letter=ALL&la=en&fIDnum=|&mode=simple http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/browse.php?letter=ALL&la=en&fI... (For anyone wondering, the reason why publishers routinely accept this is because they derive their revenue from university subscriptions, and the availability of even a large percentage of non-official article versions online apparently does not suffice to encourage libraries to unsubscribe.)

taneq 10y ago

I forget the exact wording of the quote I want, but it was something along the lines of "It is almost impossible to get someone to notice something if their continued employment depends on them not noticing it."

winter_blue 10y ago
> if their continued employment depends on them not noticing it A lot of these reviewers review for these journals for free, maybe because being known as a reviewer for a prestigious journal is beneficial. But their livelihood certainly doesn't depend on it. A lot of these major journals pocket all the profits from paywalls, and don't pay the scientists who do the hard work reviewing a dime. If there were a collective revolt, and all these scientists switched en masse to an open publishing system/platform, this scam would end then and there.
adrienne 10y ago
It's Upton Sinclair: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
- taneq 10y ago
  That's the one, thanks!

midgetjones 10y ago

I'd call it a racket.