3 ms·

This. Elsevier is not stupid. January without access means: * most scientis realise it's not necessary * the smaller rest of them, learn how to use scihub *

by rdslw 9y ago

This. Elsevier is not stupid. January without access means: * most scientis realise it's not necessary * the smaller rest of them, learn how to use scihub * elsevier is 10% less on revenue (contrary to giving it 'free access' now and retrocharging later) for every month * people start publicize in different places, diminishing elsevier value, and proving that you can print elsewhere (sic!) In result elsevier strong grip ends in a bing bang. Would scientific world hold them for just 3..5 months, and they're out of the business. Simple.

geezerjay 9y ago
> * most scientis realise it's not necessary Each and every scientist is well aware of that. However, their careers are dictated by scientific production metrics, and these involve getting papers accepted by well established publications, and these are often defined by lists of acceptable journals dictated in a top-down manner by universities or even the state, and these lists are composed almost exclusively of... You've guessed it: commercial publications managed by the likes of elsevier.
- confounded 9y ago
  So, just download them from scihub.
  - geezerjay 9y ago
    You don't advance your career with downloads. You advance your career with publications. Even if you decide to quote your local TV Guide in your papers, you still need to meet publishing quotas to justify your present and future grants, and the only thing that counts is getting your work published in well-established publications.
- Vinnl 9y ago
  That's mostly relevant when it comes to choosing where to publish. When choosing what to read, however, the expectation is that they can mostly do without subscriptions. However, if that means that German researchers (and perhaps later others as well) are less likely to read work published in Elsevier journals, that might in turn lead to people being less likely to publish there - because of those same metrics. If fewer researchers read your work, fewer will cite it.

by rdslw 9y ago

geezerjay 9y ago

> * most scientis realise it's not necessary Each and every scientist is well aware of that. However, their careers are dictated by scientific production metrics, and these involve getting papers accepted by well established publications, and these are often defined by lists of acceptable journals dictated in a top-down manner by universities or even the state, and these lists are composed almost exclusively of... You've guessed it: commercial publications managed by the likes of elsevier.

confounded 9y ago
So, just download them from scihub.
- geezerjay 9y ago
  You don't advance your career with downloads. You advance your career with publications. Even if you decide to quote your local TV Guide in your papers, you still need to meet publishing quotas to justify your present and future grants, and the only thing that counts is getting your work published in well-established publications.
Vinnl 9y ago
That's mostly relevant when it comes to choosing where to publish. When choosing what to read, however, the expectation is that they can mostly do without subscriptions. However, if that means that German researchers (and perhaps later others as well) are less likely to read work published in Elsevier journals, that might in turn lead to people being less likely to publish there - because of those same metrics. If fewer researchers read your work, fewer will cite it.