7 ms·

blaming scientists is misplaced. This is a policy-level question, for which the policy IS evolving fairly rapidly. The scientists are also rapidly updating an

blaming scientists is misplaced. This is a policy-level question, for which the policy IS evolving fairly rapidly. The scientists are also rapidly updating and most papers have pre-prints available via arxiv or bioRxiv, etc and the NIH and many other funding agencies require open access soon after publication. Lastly, many scientists end-run the publishers and make the print copy PDFs available on their lab websites. In no way can I imagine how blaming scientists for working within the established incentive structure to advance their careers helps advance this issue.

Vinnl 9y ago
Well, some of them are also complicit in maintaining that incentive structure: https://theconversation.com/why-i-disagree-with-nobel-laureates-when-it-comes-to-career-advice-for-scientists-80079 https://theconversation.com/why-i-disagree-with-nobel-laurea... But yeah, it's hard to blame anyone specifically, as the current situation is the result of so many actors: https://medium.com/flockademic/the-vicious-cycle-of-scholarly-publishing-eef794937c9c https://medium.com/flockademic/the-vicious-cycle-of-scholarl... (Apologies for plugging my own article repeatedly, but otherwise I'd be writing the same all the time...)
- killjoywashere 9y ago
  You can definitely blame Elsevier. Have at it.
  - Vinnl 9y ago
    Haha, I often do, and they've definitely exploited the system most. That said, even they are accountable to a diverse set of shareholders, and if they were to disappear overnight, there'd also be quite some negative effects. But yeah, if you do want to blame any one party, Elsevier would be it.
dkural 9y ago
I wholly reject the type of argument where "you can't blame people for being self-interested in a given incentive structure". You certainly can. To take it to an absurd extreme, it is a bit like saying you can't blame people for not standing up to Nazis in Weimar Germany. It is indeed suicidal to have done so, yet, you can blame them. That said, I also wholly agree that it is foolish to expect change before changing their incentives. Public exposure of the racket that is scientific publishing is one such minor incentive change.
- laretluval 9y ago
  Yes, you can blame them. It would give a great feeling of righteous indignation. But would that help solve the problem?
  - wfo 9y ago
    With a functioning justice system or government or social structure, with blame comes punishment and consequences that deter future behavior. If top researchers refused to publish in or advocate their department pay for closed-access journals, they would die. If the NSF required NSF funding could not be used to generate work that would be published in closed-access journals, they would die. If the justice department broke up these journals for the public good or we simply made it impossible for certain IP regulations to apply to scientific research, they would die. All of these actions require first to acknowledge there is a problem, second to blame corporations running closed-access journals, third to destroy them. You can't skip the second step.
tikhonj 9y ago
Blaming individual scientists is largely misplaced, but you can definitely blame then collectively. The root cause of a lot of these problems is that academia has an almost farcical obsession with prestige, and that's largely a bottom-up function of the culture. The inability to collectively move to different publishing venues is merely one consequence of this culture.
- Vinnl 9y ago
  ...which in turn is a result of governments/funders focusing on "excellence" (whatever that means), there being far more people willing to do research than there are funds available, and prestige being used as a way to distribute those funds.
  - tikhonj 9y ago
    It also extends to things outside finding like graduate school admissions or even peer review. On top of that, you know who's making the low-level decisions for giving grants? People from and steeped in the same academic culture. That's a much larger driving force than the politicians at the top of the funding organizations who don't even understand the intricate prestige ranking in academic fields to do anything actionable with it.
    - laretluval 9y ago
      So if you think that the problem stems from a unique problem in academia's culture, then why do you think academia ended up with that culture while other endeavors didn't? Was it because of the character of academics, or because of the incentive structure they operate in?
      - tikhonj 9y ago
        I don't think it's a unique problem to academia. I recently read something in exactly the same spirit from a lawyer (almost literally "we won't hire anyone not from a T14 school"). If anything, the interesting thing to watch for is which endeavors don't have this culture.
avar 9y ago
I'm not blaming scientists, which should be obvious given my proposed solution of solving this at the funding level. Of course some scientists derive value from publishing in prestigious journals, but if that's the case they can pay for those fees themselves out of their own pocket, not out of their research grant. If those journals demand exclusivity, which they often do, the scientists can of course continue to publish in them if they so choose, but then they can also fund their own research.
- noobermin 9y ago
  EDIT: reread your comment, you're offering hypotheticals I suppose. I'm okay with the public through the government mandating open access, so they have to then pay the open access fees and we'll all be happy to do it.
tonto 9y ago
It is interesting that open access and preprint are being conflated in some way. At least preprints public. But why is a preprint public and final not in any case?

Vinnl 9y ago

Well, some of them are also complicit in maintaining that incentive structure: https://theconversation.com/why-i-disagree-with-nobel-laureates-when-it-comes-to-career-advice-for-scientists-80079 https://theconversation.com/why-i-disagree-with-nobel-laurea... But yeah, it's hard to blame anyone specifically, as the current situation is the result of so many actors: https://medium.com/flockademic/the-vicious-cycle-of-scholarly-publishing-eef794937c9c https://medium.com/flockademic/the-vicious-cycle-of-scholarl... (Apologies for plugging my own article repeatedly, but otherwise I'd be writing the same all the time...)

killjoywashere 9y ago
You can definitely blame Elsevier. Have at it.
- Vinnl 9y ago
  Haha, I often do, and they've definitely exploited the system most. That said, even they are accountable to a diverse set of shareholders, and if they were to disappear overnight, there'd also be quite some negative effects. But yeah, if you do want to blame any one party, Elsevier would be it.

dkural 9y ago

I wholly reject the type of argument where "you can't blame people for being self-interested in a given incentive structure". You certainly can. To take it to an absurd extreme, it is a bit like saying you can't blame people for not standing up to Nazis in Weimar Germany. It is indeed suicidal to have done so, yet, you can blame them. That said, I also wholly agree that it is foolish to expect change before changing their incentives. Public exposure of the racket that is scientific publishing is one such minor incentive change.

laretluval 9y ago
Yes, you can blame them. It would give a great feeling of righteous indignation. But would that help solve the problem?
- wfo 9y ago
  With a functioning justice system or government or social structure, with blame comes punishment and consequences that deter future behavior. If top researchers refused to publish in or advocate their department pay for closed-access journals, they would die. If the NSF required NSF funding could not be used to generate work that would be published in closed-access journals, they would die. If the justice department broke up these journals for the public good or we simply made it impossible for certain IP regulations to apply to scientific research, they would die. All of these actions require first to acknowledge there is a problem, second to blame corporations running closed-access journals, third to destroy them. You can't skip the second step.

tikhonj 9y ago

Blaming individual scientists is largely misplaced, but you can definitely blame then collectively. The root cause of a lot of these problems is that academia has an almost farcical obsession with prestige, and that's largely a bottom-up function of the culture. The inability to collectively move to different publishing venues is merely one consequence of this culture.

Vinnl 9y ago
...which in turn is a result of governments/funders focusing on "excellence" (whatever that means), there being far more people willing to do research than there are funds available, and prestige being used as a way to distribute those funds.
- tikhonj 9y ago
  It also extends to things outside finding like graduate school admissions or even peer review. On top of that, you know who's making the low-level decisions for giving grants? People from and steeped in the same academic culture. That's a much larger driving force than the politicians at the top of the funding organizations who don't even understand the intricate prestige ranking in academic fields to do anything actionable with it.
  - laretluval 9y ago
    So if you think that the problem stems from a unique problem in academia's culture, then why do you think academia ended up with that culture while other endeavors didn't? Was it because of the character of academics, or because of the incentive structure they operate in?
    - tikhonj 9y ago
      I don't think it's a unique problem to academia. I recently read something in exactly the same spirit from a lawyer (almost literally "we won't hire anyone not from a T14 school"). If anything, the interesting thing to watch for is which endeavors don't have this culture.

avar 9y ago

I'm not blaming scientists, which should be obvious given my proposed solution of solving this at the funding level. Of course some scientists derive value from publishing in prestigious journals, but if that's the case they can pay for those fees themselves out of their own pocket, not out of their research grant. If those journals demand exclusivity, which they often do, the scientists can of course continue to publish in them if they so choose, but then they can also fund their own research.

noobermin 9y ago
EDIT: reread your comment, you're offering hypotheticals I suppose. I'm okay with the public through the government mandating open access, so they have to then pay the open access fees and we'll all be happy to do it.

tonto 9y ago

It is interesting that open access and preprint are being conflated in some way. At least preprints public. But why is a preprint public and final not in any case?