13 ms·
It's a classic collective decision problem. If almost all postdocs at the same time decided to boycott closed journals, then this would work. However, in practi
by jonathanstrange 9y ago
It's a classic collective decision problem. If almost all postdocs at the same time decided to boycott closed journals, then this would work. However, in practice solutions are always failing whenever they are based on the idea that a majority has to voluntarily make the right move within a short time period, if that means smaller wins for people who do not make the move.
To give another example of such a problem: If in urban areas everyone switched his WIFI router to some open mesh network software at the same time, the gains from this ad hoc network would be tremendous. But if only few switch, the gains are almost nonexistent and the losses can be high. So it's never going to happen.
- crawfordcomeaux 9y agoWhat if it's "kickstarted" with people pledging to submit papers to only a select few publishers once a critical mass of pledges have been received?
- crawfordcomeaux 9y agoAnd maybe they pledge by providing a paper they're withholding from publishing? If the authors, pledging platform, and open journals collaboratively design & coordinate a process for handling the reviewing of said papers, then the process can safely be automated. Also, pledging can be done as a pledge to be available for free peer review if they aren't pledging a paper.
- dredmorbius 9y agoGood question. Finding ways to disincentivise defection would be key. You might want to look up Mancur Olson's "Logic of Collective Action", which deals with this problem, generally.
- crawfordcomeaux 9y agoThanks for the lead!