3 ms·

Ever since I heard about Sci-Hub, I knew judgements along this line would be incoming eventually. The only way to solve the science publishing problem is from

by FTA 9y ago

Ever since I heard about Sci-Hub, I knew judgements along this line would be incoming eventually. The only way to solve the science publishing problem is from the top down: lean on scientific funding agencies for them to mandate results must be published in an open access journal. Take it a step further and say none of this "pay-us-super-extra-money-on-top-to-open-your-article-up-early" garbage either. Hesitation from many scientists to publish in open access is that many full open access journals are not as popular and thus you lose some impact or credibility to the works when publishing in them. But if everyone is forced to migrate to open access, that will go away--perhaps with a few years of turbulence. Otherwise, the behemoths like RELX and Wiley will endlessly pursue any sort of effort to open up their copyrighted material (and rightly so within their legal rights), just like the RIAA and music sharing.

tehwebguy 9y ago
> Otherwise, the behemoths like RELX and Wiley will endlessly pursue any sort of effort to open up their copyrighted material (and rightly so within their legal rights), just like the RIAA and music sharing. Who cares? They will burn their money in court in exchange for literally nothing. That is exactly the result the world should hope for.
clarkmoody 9y ago
> The only way to solve ... top down ... mandate ... everyone is forced Or you could think carefully through the incentive structure of the scientific publishing system to see if there are places where small tweaks could go a long way. This is a system that emerged over centuries, and using your top-down hammer may change it in the short-run, but it will invariably morph into something unintended and unexpected if the proper incentives are not in place to guarantee long-term success. And I don't think those incentives should be another dose of your hammer. The landscape includes many parties: researchers who produce papers, journals that publish papers, consumers who read papers, institutions that pay for journals, institutions that fund research, and institutions that employ researchers. There are probably more. All of them have different costs, preferences, and incentives. Disentangling that web may yield some very good opportunities for improvement, either as policy, advocacy, or entrepreneurship. Don't get me wrong for a second: I'm not defending the copyright lobby and its obscene partnership with the state.
- kerkeslager 9y ago
  What is your objection to simply solving the problem? Why is it unreasonable to have public funds go to publicly-available research? Is there some reason that we as a society should care if rent seeking middle men who provide no value are disenfranchised? It sounds to me like you're so slavishly devoted to Silicon Valley economics that you want to incentivize nails rather than use a hammer.
  - clarkmoody 9y ago
    > What is your objection to simply solving the problem? Perhaps I don't know a perfect solution, but I know that top-down solutions often produce negative unintended consequences. > rent seeking middle men who provide no value I hate rent seeking and would love to see it eliminated from all sectors of the economy. But non-rent-seeking middle men often provide immense value to society, which is why they exist in the first place. > slavishly devoted Do you insult everyone you encounter online? > Why is it unreasonable to have public funds go to publicly-available research? I never said this was unreasonable, merely that it's complicated. Of course, my "Silicon Valley economics" approach would be to start with a reduction in copyright regulations and privileges (along with patents for that matter).
    - madhadron 9y ago
      This is a situation where it's not complicated. A number of fields have simply stripped the commercial journals out of their midst. It works beautifully.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    The answer to your question is literally in the first paragraph of that comment. > This is a system that emerged over centuries, and using your top-down hammer may change it in the short-run, but it will invariably morph into something unintended and unexpected if the proper incentives are not in place to guarantee long-term success. I.e. scientific publishing, like almost everything else that involves humans, is a dynamic system. Smash it, and it will reconstruct itself in some form or other. If you don't change underlying incentives, you'll end up in a similar state with which you started. See also: comments that refer to "regrettable substitution" in the comment page here. It's not "Silicon Valley economics", it's just a basic application of reason.

by FTA 9y ago

tehwebguy 9y ago

> Otherwise, the behemoths like RELX and Wiley will endlessly pursue any sort of effort to open up their copyrighted material (and rightly so within their legal rights), just like the RIAA and music sharing. Who cares? They will burn their money in court in exchange for literally nothing. That is exactly the result the world should hope for.

clarkmoody 9y ago

> The only way to solve ... top down ... mandate ... everyone is forced Or you could think carefully through the incentive structure of the scientific publishing system to see if there are places where small tweaks could go a long way. This is a system that emerged over centuries, and using your top-down hammer may change it in the short-run, but it will invariably morph into something unintended and unexpected if the proper incentives are not in place to guarantee long-term success. And I don't think those incentives should be another dose of your hammer. The landscape includes many parties: researchers who produce papers, journals that publish papers, consumers who read papers, institutions that pay for journals, institutions that fund research, and institutions that employ researchers. There are probably more. All of them have different costs, preferences, and incentives. Disentangling that web may yield some very good opportunities for improvement, either as policy, advocacy, or entrepreneurship. Don't get me wrong for a second: I'm not defending the copyright lobby and its obscene partnership with the state.

kerkeslager 9y ago
What is your objection to simply solving the problem? Why is it unreasonable to have public funds go to publicly-available research? Is there some reason that we as a society should care if rent seeking middle men who provide no value are disenfranchised? It sounds to me like you're so slavishly devoted to Silicon Valley economics that you want to incentivize nails rather than use a hammer.
- clarkmoody 9y ago
  > What is your objection to simply solving the problem? Perhaps I don't know a perfect solution, but I know that top-down solutions often produce negative unintended consequences. > rent seeking middle men who provide no value I hate rent seeking and would love to see it eliminated from all sectors of the economy. But non-rent-seeking middle men often provide immense value to society, which is why they exist in the first place. > slavishly devoted Do you insult everyone you encounter online? > Why is it unreasonable to have public funds go to publicly-available research? I never said this was unreasonable, merely that it's complicated. Of course, my "Silicon Valley economics" approach would be to start with a reduction in copyright regulations and privileges (along with patents for that matter).
  - madhadron 9y ago
    This is a situation where it's not complicated. A number of fields have simply stripped the commercial journals out of their midst. It works beautifully.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  The answer to your question is literally in the first paragraph of that comment. > This is a system that emerged over centuries, and using your top-down hammer may change it in the short-run, but it will invariably morph into something unintended and unexpected if the proper incentives are not in place to guarantee long-term success. I.e. scientific publishing, like almost everything else that involves humans, is a dynamic system. Smash it, and it will reconstruct itself in some form or other. If you don't change underlying incentives, you'll end up in a similar state with which you started. See also: comments that refer to "regrettable substitution" in the comment page here. It's not "Silicon Valley economics", it's just a basic application of reason.