4 ms·

How to Fix the Academic Publishing Problem

2 points by Mononokay 9y ago

aurizon 9y ago
It is not broken, it works well, the people who run it make huge amounts of cash and the scientists get what they want - if they can afford it, and the advancement of tech is slowed by them, esp to poor countries. Elsevier should be fired and replaced by a paid peer review system that works as it is. All past and future papers are free of all copyright. Elsevier used the free services of reviewers to rate papers. Now reviewers will be paid and Elsevier not. Will it be cheaper? Who knows, but I am so sick of the royalty that is Elsevier and their ilk, that anything is better, and it will get better and leave Elsevier in the dust - where they belong
- Mononokay 9y ago
  That's exactly what the page is about - there's even a solution proposed within.
  - aurizon 9y ago
    Yes, it will take action by the Nobel Committee - to say they will only give Nobels to research that is openly published without copyright from day 1, and the federal government to state they will only fund research that is open from day 1. Still need paid reviewers. Elsevier et al, have created a glory based peer review system where people who are worth vie for the cachet of being a reviewer.
    - Mononokay 9y ago
      > Still need paid reviewers. Why, exactly? Wouldn't the article's solution be a better way of going about it?
      - aurizon 9y ago
        Meet the 'tragedy of the commons'. The Elsevier way is peer glory, cash is the best replacement. With no persuasive/coercive force - why would they do it. Look how Linux does well in an open way for stand alone small apps. Linux can not compete with the microsoft or oracle machines. Canonical has done very well and has funded many of the large programming tasks that the catherd could not manage.
        Mononokay 9y ago
        > With no persuasive/coercive force - why would they do it. The article says it should be required to submit a paper in the first place - I'd imagine that'd be incentive enough.
        aurizon 9y ago
        Watch our for circles of reviewers who are not capable, but are willing to act as reviewers on each other in a network to validate their group. Far fetched??, not at all, it had been done and continues to be done. Elsevier et all, did a good job with their peers and glory reward method, so a system that replaces it need to be well thought out in depth to stand permanently. Elsevier just sucks and sucks and sucks, like US drug makers

2 points by Mononokay 9y ago

It is not broken, it works well, the people who run it make huge amounts of cash and the scientists get what they want - if they can afford it, and the advancement of tech is slowed by them, esp to poor countries. Elsevier should be fired and replaced by a paid peer review system that works as it is. All past and future papers are free of all copyright. Elsevier used the free services of reviewers to rate papers. Now reviewers will be paid and Elsevier not. Will it be cheaper? Who knows, but I am so sick of the royalty that is Elsevier and their ilk, that anything is better, and it will get better and leave Elsevier in the dust - where they belong

Mononokay 9y ago
That's exactly what the page is about - there's even a solution proposed within.
- aurizon 9y ago
  Yes, it will take action by the Nobel Committee - to say they will only give Nobels to research that is openly published without copyright from day 1, and the federal government to state they will only fund research that is open from day 1. Still need paid reviewers. Elsevier et al, have created a glory based peer review system where people who are worth vie for the cachet of being a reviewer.
  - Mononokay 9y ago
    > Still need paid reviewers. Why, exactly? Wouldn't the article's solution be a better way of going about it?
    - aurizon 9y ago
      Meet the 'tragedy of the commons'. The Elsevier way is peer glory, cash is the best replacement. With no persuasive/coercive force - why would they do it. Look how Linux does well in an open way for stand alone small apps. Linux can not compete with the microsoft or oracle machines. Canonical has done very well and has funded many of the large programming tasks that the catherd could not manage.
      - Mononokay 9y ago
        > With no persuasive/coercive force - why would they do it. The article says it should be required to submit a paper in the first place - I'd imagine that'd be incentive enough.
        aurizon 9y ago
        Watch our for circles of reviewers who are not capable, but are willing to act as reviewers on each other in a network to validate their group. Far fetched??, not at all, it had been done and continues to be done. Elsevier et all, did a good job with their peers and glory reward method, so a system that replaces it need to be well thought out in depth to stand permanently. Elsevier just sucks and sucks and sucks, like US drug makers