8 ms·

As someone who works in academia (Europe) I understand that scientific papers need hosting and server space and such, but does it really help humanity that all

by Knufen 9y ago

As someone who works in academia (Europe) I understand that scientific papers need hosting and server space and such, but does it really help humanity that all advances will be behind very expensive pay walls? I would argue otherwise. The current trend is not sustainable nor favorable for anyone except parasitic publishers. Edit: I understand the website was breaking the law, but this seems like symptom treating

ickwabe 9y ago
Scientists need to try more "radical sharing"[1] as the member journalists of the ICIJ[2] did in order to report on the Panama and Paradise Papers. Setting aside ego,etc. I would think result in faster real-world discoveries and applicitions for the good of all. [1]https://www.icij.org/blog/2016/12/radical-sharing-breaking-paradigms-achieve-change/ https://www.icij.org/blog/2016/12/radical-sharing-breaking-p... [2]International Consortium of Investigative Journalists
cobookman 9y ago
Don't forget the peer review and vetting process. As for the price I don't think it's really that expensive. I've never heard of a research University unable to afford it. And if not for the fees we'd have no journals. Maybe when we are post scarcity then it'd be free. But until then people's time is not unlimited and is worth something.
- Xylakant 9y ago
  > Don't forget the peer review and vetting process. The peer review often happens by unpaid peers, even for commercial journals. It's really not the dominating factor for costs.
  - diffeomorphism 9y ago
    > The peer review often happens by unpaid peers Do you know of an example of paid reviews? This would seem like a big conflict of interest and I have not heard of any but predatory journals doing that. Historically, a large cost was typesetting and print publication. However, print is used less and less in favor of online subscriptions and typesetting is mostly using the publisher's LaTeX style file. The "value" provided by journals seems to be: - communication with the editor (unpaid, mostly senior peer researcher) - review (unpaid peer) - software to manage submissions, reviews etc (commercial) - proofreading for typos and some fine tuning for figures and layout (useful) - prestige of having published in an important journal (very valuable for your career)
- Knufen 9y ago
  >As for the price I don't think it's really that expensive. There are multiple universities spending millions upon millions (which could be used to further science), to buy subscriptions for all the journals. I know my university spends 10 mil euroes a year. And it's not only about pricing, it's the general trend of commercialising research which should benefint all of humanity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsevier#Pricing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsevier#Pricing I know Elsevier is not the only one, but they are the frontrunner of parasitic behaviour. Edit: Formatting
  - dmix 9y ago
    Who does this money go to? Does a percentage go back to the scientists who write the papers?
    - lou1306 9y ago
      It depends... Do you consider 0% "a percentage"?
    - Knufen 9y ago
      The publisher, essentially the researcher gives the rights to his paper in exchange for publishing. Then the publisher put the research behind a paywall and even the researcher who wrote it will have to pay.
      - Bromskloss 9y ago
        > even the researcher who wrote it will have to pay. Eh, pay for what? The author already has the article. Often-times, the agreement furthermore permits limited dissemination of the article by the author, possibly even on the author's web page.
        diffeomorphism 9y ago
        Pay for color figures in print, for example (a few hundred per figure if I recall correctly). Furthermore, you get an author's copy with watermarks with very limited dissemination rights. You don't get a copy of the journal issue unless you pay. Also, this varies very much by discipline. Math research is pretty universally available on the arXiv, but chemistry or biology is not nearly as pervasive.
- remus 9y ago
  > Don't forget the peer review and vetting process. Which is almost universally done for free by the editorial/review panel for the given journal. > As for the price I don't think it's really that expensive. I've never heard of a research University unable to afford it. It would be nice if everyone had access to research, not just those who happen to work in organisations with deep enough pockets. > And if not for the fees we'd have no journals. Why? > Maybe when we are post scarcity then it'd be free. But until then people's time is not unlimited and is worth something. The people who put in the time (editorial board) and expertise (reviewers) aren't getting paid. If they're not getting paid then where is all the money going? Personally I think the value is in the bits that are currently all done for free, Im not sure what value the publishers really add.
  - jklein11 9y ago
    It seems that the publisher's value is curating studies that have gone through this process. If you were to find a study through Sci-Hub would you know that it had gone through editorial/review panel? How do you know that the study is trustworthy?
    - remus 9y ago
      Surely that's the work of the editorial board? Again, they are largely unpaid as far as Im aware. This makes interesting reading if you're interested in how a free (or at least very low cost) journal can work https://gowers.wordpress.com/2015/09/10/discrete-analysis-an-arxiv-overlay-journal/ https://gowers.wordpress.com/2015/09/10/discrete-analysis-an...
  - HaoZeke 9y ago
    Peer review has little to no financial impact..
  - pas 9y ago
    > Which is almost universally done for free by the editorial/review panel for the given journal. Is there good data on this? (I mean, I guess there is, but would someone present it to ignoramuses such as myself? Thanks.)
- afpx 9y ago
  Remember that a lot of us don't work for research universities, and we can't afford $199 per paper just to read the details that are summarized in the abstract. Also, many landmark papers are several decades old. A lot of time I just want to read the details of an influential paper just to see if I agree with how it is portrayed in popular culture. For example, I recently wanted to read the Dunning Kruger paper to see if it really says what people think it says. And, when James Damore cited research for his Google manifesto - I wanted to see if his conclusions held up. I'm not sure how an average person can make informed judgments without access to these papers. Without Sci-Hub, we must just believe what is fed to us. Since its creation, Sci-Hub has become an essential part of my life.
  - vixen99 9y ago
    Ditto for http://sci-hub.cc/ http://sci-hub.cc/. Another example: for those of us (just about everybody) concerned about our health, how do we access authoritative papers on pharamceutical drugs, nutrition, medical conditions etc., Or do we rely on some journalist's piece which is more often than not biased and patronizing? And the irony is that this is almost entirely tax-payer funded research.
- anigbrowl 9y ago
  I happen to live near a research university and while I'm not a student nobody seems to object to me wandering in and using the libraries there from time to time. But for most people the cost of accessing a journal article for casual interest is prohibitive, and not everyone has the funds or time to attend a university. The point of the web is to make knowledge available to everyone. Be realistic, it costs more to read a single article on Nature or Science than it does to buy a book on the topic. That's bullshit.
  - cobookman 9y ago
    > But for most people the cost of accessing a journal article for casual interest is prohibitive And most people don't have access to the facilities to run proper research. R&D is not cheap. As mentioned we live in a capitalistic society. Time is a scare resource, and the current journal editors are putting a price to their time. If you have a passion for cheaper research papers, go ahead and compile papers & start your own free journal. That or help another free journal out. > Be realistic, it costs more to read a single article on Nature or Science than it does to buy a book on the topic. That's bullshit. Its total bullshit. I dont disagree. This might even be a great YC Startup opportunity :D. Until someone competes it'll continue being bullshit.
- danielford 9y ago
  Community colleges like the one I work at can't afford the journal fees. One of my assignments involves reading several peer-reviewed articles on a narrow topic and writing an explanation of the research. Every semester I have students that struggle with finishing this assignment because the articles they need are inaccessible.
  - jstarfish 9y ago
    If the barrier to accessibility is such a problem, why perpetuate it by throwing your students against that wall? The journals' business model does suck, but you're delivering students to a paywalled garden to retrieve information on what amounts to a proprietary topic. You have the power to change this by redirecting the students' attention elsewhere, either by loosening requirements or changing topics to one with more accessible research...
    - danielford 9y ago
      They choose the topic. I'm fine with anything in biology, medicine, chemistry, and even some social science topics. Some of them run into trouble and others don't depending on what they choose. I've considered removing the assignment a few times, but there's no skill more essential to success in science than the ability to synthesize different research articles into a coherent whole. I wouldn't feel like I was doing my job if I stopped assigning it.
rayiner 9y ago
The law doesn't operate by going back to first principles ("will it really help humanity?") in every case. We've decided copyright is reasonable as a concept, and we evaluate each case by reference to the rules of copyright, without creating special exceptions all over the place. Nor are any special exceptions necessary. Absolutely nothing prevents scientists and academics from publishing in open-access journals. Scientists and academics do so to cash in on the prestige of the "branded" for-pay journals. Given that they do this voluntarily, why should the law step in and ameliorate the collateral effects of their conduct?
- HaoZeke 9y ago
  You know. Open access just means paid for by the researcher. Not everyone has that kind of money..
  - tamcap 9y ago
    There is a non-insignificant amount of work to take a paper from submission to publication. It's hard to determine the exact value / cost of that work, but article publication fees (and subscription fees!) is one way that work is paid for. So while I am sympathetic to your argument, one could then say that "rich" researchers should (based on an arbitrarily chosen morality) pay for open access, and the "poor" ones should go to low APC, subscription journals... I am not sure I like this argument either. Now, researchers are slowly getting new tools where that cost is accounted for in other ways. I.e. The Winnower, biorxiv, etc. Whether one day one of those, or a future invention will replace academic journals, only time will tell.
- ggg9990 9y ago
  You're right that copyright law does not need a special case here. Rather, taxpayer-funded research grants should come with the requirement that all findings will be published open access. If you want to publish in Nature, go get your own research money. Scientists should not have complete personal ownership over subsidized research that they conduct.
- travmatt 9y ago
  Because most of the research is funded by tax dollars?
seer 9y ago
I never understood the argument of “we’ll block this website that host papers because we need revenue to host those papers”. I mean, if you want papers to be hosted just leave people to host them... There might be other arguments and I don’t really find most of them valid as well, but the one about hosting costs just sounds ... absurd
lisper 9y ago
> scientific papers need hosting and server space and such The cost of such things is trivial. A typical article is <<1GB. The cost of storing a GB is about 10 cents at today's prices. If you charged each author $1 to publish a paper you would cover the costs with a 90% profit margin.

by Knufen 9y ago

ickwabe 9y ago

Scientists need to try more "radical sharing"[1] as the member journalists of the ICIJ[2] did in order to report on the Panama and Paradise Papers. Setting aside ego,etc. I would think result in faster real-world discoveries and applicitions for the good of all. [1]https://www.icij.org/blog/2016/12/radical-sharing-breaking-paradigms-achieve-change/ https://www.icij.org/blog/2016/12/radical-sharing-breaking-p... [2]International Consortium of Investigative Journalists

cobookman 9y ago

Don't forget the peer review and vetting process. As for the price I don't think it's really that expensive. I've never heard of a research University unable to afford it. And if not for the fees we'd have no journals. Maybe when we are post scarcity then it'd be free. But until then people's time is not unlimited and is worth something.

Xylakant 9y ago
> Don't forget the peer review and vetting process. The peer review often happens by unpaid peers, even for commercial journals. It's really not the dominating factor for costs.
- diffeomorphism 9y ago
  > The peer review often happens by unpaid peers Do you know of an example of paid reviews? This would seem like a big conflict of interest and I have not heard of any but predatory journals doing that. Historically, a large cost was typesetting and print publication. However, print is used less and less in favor of online subscriptions and typesetting is mostly using the publisher's LaTeX style file. The "value" provided by journals seems to be: - communication with the editor (unpaid, mostly senior peer researcher) - review (unpaid peer) - software to manage submissions, reviews etc (commercial) - proofreading for typos and some fine tuning for figures and layout (useful) - prestige of having published in an important journal (very valuable for your career)
Knufen 9y ago
>As for the price I don't think it's really that expensive. There are multiple universities spending millions upon millions (which could be used to further science), to buy subscriptions for all the journals. I know my university spends 10 mil euroes a year. And it's not only about pricing, it's the general trend of commercialising research which should benefint all of humanity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsevier#Pricing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elsevier#Pricing I know Elsevier is not the only one, but they are the frontrunner of parasitic behaviour. Edit: Formatting
- dmix 9y ago
  Who does this money go to? Does a percentage go back to the scientists who write the papers?
  - lou1306 9y ago
    It depends... Do you consider 0% "a percentage"?
  - Knufen 9y ago
    The publisher, essentially the researcher gives the rights to his paper in exchange for publishing. Then the publisher put the research behind a paywall and even the researcher who wrote it will have to pay.
    - Bromskloss 9y ago
      > even the researcher who wrote it will have to pay. Eh, pay for what? The author already has the article. Often-times, the agreement furthermore permits limited dissemination of the article by the author, possibly even on the author's web page.
      - diffeomorphism 9y ago
        Pay for color figures in print, for example (a few hundred per figure if I recall correctly). Furthermore, you get an author's copy with watermarks with very limited dissemination rights. You don't get a copy of the journal issue unless you pay. Also, this varies very much by discipline. Math research is pretty universally available on the arXiv, but chemistry or biology is not nearly as pervasive.
remus 9y ago
> Don't forget the peer review and vetting process. Which is almost universally done for free by the editorial/review panel for the given journal. > As for the price I don't think it's really that expensive. I've never heard of a research University unable to afford it. It would be nice if everyone had access to research, not just those who happen to work in organisations with deep enough pockets. > And if not for the fees we'd have no journals. Why? > Maybe when we are post scarcity then it'd be free. But until then people's time is not unlimited and is worth something. The people who put in the time (editorial board) and expertise (reviewers) aren't getting paid. If they're not getting paid then where is all the money going? Personally I think the value is in the bits that are currently all done for free, Im not sure what value the publishers really add.
- jklein11 9y ago
  It seems that the publisher's value is curating studies that have gone through this process. If you were to find a study through Sci-Hub would you know that it had gone through editorial/review panel? How do you know that the study is trustworthy?
  - remus 9y ago
    Surely that's the work of the editorial board? Again, they are largely unpaid as far as Im aware. This makes interesting reading if you're interested in how a free (or at least very low cost) journal can work https://gowers.wordpress.com/2015/09/10/discrete-analysis-an-arxiv-overlay-journal/ https://gowers.wordpress.com/2015/09/10/discrete-analysis-an...
- HaoZeke 9y ago
  Peer review has little to no financial impact..
- pas 9y ago
  > Which is almost universally done for free by the editorial/review panel for the given journal. Is there good data on this? (I mean, I guess there is, but would someone present it to ignoramuses such as myself? Thanks.)
afpx 9y ago
Remember that a lot of us don't work for research universities, and we can't afford $199 per paper just to read the details that are summarized in the abstract. Also, many landmark papers are several decades old. A lot of time I just want to read the details of an influential paper just to see if I agree with how it is portrayed in popular culture. For example, I recently wanted to read the Dunning Kruger paper to see if it really says what people think it says. And, when James Damore cited research for his Google manifesto - I wanted to see if his conclusions held up. I'm not sure how an average person can make informed judgments without access to these papers. Without Sci-Hub, we must just believe what is fed to us. Since its creation, Sci-Hub has become an essential part of my life.
- vixen99 9y ago
  Ditto for http://sci-hub.cc/ http://sci-hub.cc/. Another example: for those of us (just about everybody) concerned about our health, how do we access authoritative papers on pharamceutical drugs, nutrition, medical conditions etc., Or do we rely on some journalist's piece which is more often than not biased and patronizing? And the irony is that this is almost entirely tax-payer funded research.
anigbrowl 9y ago
I happen to live near a research university and while I'm not a student nobody seems to object to me wandering in and using the libraries there from time to time. But for most people the cost of accessing a journal article for casual interest is prohibitive, and not everyone has the funds or time to attend a university. The point of the web is to make knowledge available to everyone. Be realistic, it costs more to read a single article on Nature or Science than it does to buy a book on the topic. That's bullshit.
- cobookman 9y ago
  > But for most people the cost of accessing a journal article for casual interest is prohibitive And most people don't have access to the facilities to run proper research. R&D is not cheap. As mentioned we live in a capitalistic society. Time is a scare resource, and the current journal editors are putting a price to their time. If you have a passion for cheaper research papers, go ahead and compile papers & start your own free journal. That or help another free journal out. > Be realistic, it costs more to read a single article on Nature or Science than it does to buy a book on the topic. That's bullshit. Its total bullshit. I dont disagree. This might even be a great YC Startup opportunity :D. Until someone competes it'll continue being bullshit.
danielford 9y ago
Community colleges like the one I work at can't afford the journal fees. One of my assignments involves reading several peer-reviewed articles on a narrow topic and writing an explanation of the research. Every semester I have students that struggle with finishing this assignment because the articles they need are inaccessible.
- jstarfish 9y ago
  If the barrier to accessibility is such a problem, why perpetuate it by throwing your students against that wall? The journals' business model does suck, but you're delivering students to a paywalled garden to retrieve information on what amounts to a proprietary topic. You have the power to change this by redirecting the students' attention elsewhere, either by loosening requirements or changing topics to one with more accessible research...
  - danielford 9y ago
    They choose the topic. I'm fine with anything in biology, medicine, chemistry, and even some social science topics. Some of them run into trouble and others don't depending on what they choose. I've considered removing the assignment a few times, but there's no skill more essential to success in science than the ability to synthesize different research articles into a coherent whole. I wouldn't feel like I was doing my job if I stopped assigning it.

rayiner 9y ago

The law doesn't operate by going back to first principles ("will it really help humanity?") in every case. We've decided copyright is reasonable as a concept, and we evaluate each case by reference to the rules of copyright, without creating special exceptions all over the place. Nor are any special exceptions necessary. Absolutely nothing prevents scientists and academics from publishing in open-access journals. Scientists and academics do so to cash in on the prestige of the "branded" for-pay journals. Given that they do this voluntarily, why should the law step in and ameliorate the collateral effects of their conduct?

HaoZeke 9y ago
You know. Open access just means paid for by the researcher. Not everyone has that kind of money..
- tamcap 9y ago
  There is a non-insignificant amount of work to take a paper from submission to publication. It's hard to determine the exact value / cost of that work, but article publication fees (and subscription fees!) is one way that work is paid for. So while I am sympathetic to your argument, one could then say that "rich" researchers should (based on an arbitrarily chosen morality) pay for open access, and the "poor" ones should go to low APC, subscription journals... I am not sure I like this argument either. Now, researchers are slowly getting new tools where that cost is accounted for in other ways. I.e. The Winnower, biorxiv, etc. Whether one day one of those, or a future invention will replace academic journals, only time will tell.
ggg9990 9y ago
You're right that copyright law does not need a special case here. Rather, taxpayer-funded research grants should come with the requirement that all findings will be published open access. If you want to publish in Nature, go get your own research money. Scientists should not have complete personal ownership over subsidized research that they conduct.
travmatt 9y ago
Because most of the research is funded by tax dollars?

seer 9y ago

I never understood the argument of “we’ll block this website that host papers because we need revenue to host those papers”. I mean, if you want papers to be hosted just leave people to host them... There might be other arguments and I don’t really find most of them valid as well, but the one about hosting costs just sounds ... absurd

lisper 9y ago

> scientific papers need hosting and server space and such The cost of such things is trivial. A typical article is <<1GB. The cost of storing a GB is about 10 cents at today's prices. If you charged each author $1 to publish a paper you would cover the costs with a 90% profit margin.