4 ms·

This means it is our duty to the citizens to reduce our publishing expenses to no more than currently ~US$200m per year (and we would even increase the value of

This means it is our duty to the citizens to reduce our publishing expenses to no more than currently ~US$200m per year (and we would even increase the value of the literature by making it open to boot!). If we were to do that, we’d have US$9.8b every single year to buy all the different infrastructure solutions that already exist to support all our intellectual outputs, be that text, data or code. Is is also our duty as the people to reduce all expenditures on software? Is piracy justifiable especially within government institutions? I guess my point is that necessary is a really strong claim and you can justify a lot of crazy stuff with that. Scientific progress has continued on just fine despite these cartels. With no supporting evidence I'd argue that today's scholars have hundreds of times the free information available than they did a century ago and that ramps up the further you go back. It's easy to imagine that Elsevier's lockdown of a paper is the difference between an academic breakthrough or not, but in reality that's probably not the case, even if it's a noble cause.

tacomonstrous 9y ago
I don't believe the publishing model is significantly impeding progress in science , but that doesn't change the fact that the publishing companies are simply leeches, profiting off the work and labor of others. It's worth breaking that up, because there's no actual value there.
- dredmorbius 9y ago
  It is.
- crispinb 9y ago
  As a layperson who hasn't looked into this in detail, I can't tell whether or not the academic publishing racket has impeded sciences. But I do know it impedes public access to the findings of research that is frequently supported in whole or part with public money. That public access to its own research is a good is clearly recognised (at least here in Australia) by universities, most of whose libraries are open to the public (as are the databases via in-library PCs, but not remotely). But you must be near one for this to be practically useful.
- heisenbit 9y ago
  One example how it is messing up progress: Someone publishes a wrong study with loud claims. The press eager to report something new is racing to spread the false claims around. There is no counter-balancing force - journalist have no interest in debunking the myriad falsehoods. But the public has a real interest in knowing, particularly when there are health concerns.
llukas 9y ago
If Elsevier and others want to keep their monopolies they need to justify the following: How it is possible that they take: - free labor (reviews done by scientists) - free content (articles created by government money mostly) Then they magically become owners of that content and are permitted by society to charge obscene amount of money. Also fuck you and your ignorance, that is why we cannot have nice things.
- rhizome 9y ago
  See also: WestLaw[1] and, in opposition, Carl Malamud[2]. 1. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/West_Publishing_Co._v._Mead_Data_Central,_Inc https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/West_Publishing_Co._v._Mead_D.... 2. http://www.usglassmag.com/2016/01/cases-shed-light-on-copyright-protection-of-standards-developers/ http://www.usglassmag.com/2016/01/cases-shed-light-on-copyri...
  - dredmorbius 9y ago
    NB, your Wikisource reference doesn't hit any specific document.
    - rhizome 9y ago
      Right, it's two court opinions.
- crispinb 9y ago
  Was the last bit of incivility really necessary?
  - noiv 9y ago
    Have you read the article? ...the part about human rights? What are some street slang bits against a billion dollars money making depravity that keeps the world from spreading the know-how needed to solve problems right now at the front door? I'll never understand why disrespectful words are more comment-worthy than disrespectful actions at a global scale. At least the former can be ignored. If you really feel that upset help the OP to find the right words to adequately express his overwhelming emotions.

tacomonstrous 9y ago

I don't believe the publishing model is significantly impeding progress in science , but that doesn't change the fact that the publishing companies are simply leeches, profiting off the work and labor of others. It's worth breaking that up, because there's no actual value there.

dredmorbius 9y ago
It is.
crispinb 9y ago
As a layperson who hasn't looked into this in detail, I can't tell whether or not the academic publishing racket has impeded sciences. But I do know it impedes public access to the findings of research that is frequently supported in whole or part with public money. That public access to its own research is a good is clearly recognised (at least here in Australia) by universities, most of whose libraries are open to the public (as are the databases via in-library PCs, but not remotely). But you must be near one for this to be practically useful.
heisenbit 9y ago
One example how it is messing up progress: Someone publishes a wrong study with loud claims. The press eager to report something new is racing to spread the false claims around. There is no counter-balancing force - journalist have no interest in debunking the myriad falsehoods. But the public has a real interest in knowing, particularly when there are health concerns.

llukas 9y ago

If Elsevier and others want to keep their monopolies they need to justify the following: How it is possible that they take: - free labor (reviews done by scientists) - free content (articles created by government money mostly) Then they magically become owners of that content and are permitted by society to charge obscene amount of money. Also fuck you and your ignorance, that is why we cannot have nice things.

rhizome 9y ago
See also: WestLaw[1] and, in opposition, Carl Malamud[2]. 1. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/West_Publishing_Co._v._Mead_Data_Central,_Inc https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/West_Publishing_Co._v._Mead_D.... 2. http://www.usglassmag.com/2016/01/cases-shed-light-on-copyright-protection-of-standards-developers/ http://www.usglassmag.com/2016/01/cases-shed-light-on-copyri...
- dredmorbius 9y ago
  NB, your Wikisource reference doesn't hit any specific document.
  - rhizome 9y ago
    Right, it's two court opinions.
crispinb 9y ago
Was the last bit of incivility really necessary?
- noiv 9y ago
  Have you read the article? ...the part about human rights? What are some street slang bits against a billion dollars money making depravity that keeps the world from spreading the know-how needed to solve problems right now at the front door? I'll never understand why disrespectful words are more comment-worthy than disrespectful actions at a global scale. At least the former can be ignored. If you really feel that upset help the OP to find the right words to adequately express his overwhelming emotions.