3 ms·

The simultaneous arguments (that get repeated often) of "journals provide little to no value and therefore publications should be free" and "researchers value t

by ksk 8y ago

The simultaneous arguments (that get repeated often) of "journals provide little to no value and therefore publications should be free" and "researchers value the curation of top journals because (seemingly) only high quality papers get accepted" are quite at odds with each other I think. >where Elsevier et al receive publicly-funded knowledge, yet privately control the supply. But they are given the 'knowledge'. Sure, Chicken/Egg. Maybe government grants should come with a clause for open-access..

rwnspace 8y ago
> The simultaneous arguments (that get repeated often) [...] are quite at odds with each other I think. Yeah, I can see your point, but I think both can reasonably appear true: credentials are very 'sticky' concepts which seem reliable and are hard to dismiss unless everyone else is doing it too... > Maybe government grants should come with a clause for open-access.. Hard agree.
MagnumOpus 8y ago
> "journals provide little to no value[...]" and "researchers value the curation[...]" are quite at odds with each other I think They aren't because the journal corporations don't provide the curation, they provide the brand name that attracts heavy-hitting papers. The curation is provided by academics for free. The brand name ("impact factor" of historic papers in that journals) is the one thing that prevents migration.
- wilsonnb 8y ago
  At the end of the day, researchers need some way to decide which papers they should read and which they shouldn't. There are too many papers coming out for anyone to read them all. The fact that prestigious journals have a vested interest in not printing crap papers is a helpful filter when deciding what to read. I still think there should be some reform in this area but the journals do provide some value at the moment.

3 ms·

The simultaneous arguments (that get repeated often) of "journals provide little to no value and therefore publications should be free" and "researchers value t

by ksk 8y ago

rwnspace 8y ago
> The simultaneous arguments (that get repeated often) [...] are quite at odds with each other I think. Yeah, I can see your point, but I think both can reasonably appear true: credentials are very 'sticky' concepts which seem reliable and are hard to dismiss unless everyone else is doing it too... > Maybe government grants should come with a clause for open-access.. Hard agree.
MagnumOpus 8y ago
> "journals provide little to no value[...]" and "researchers value the curation[...]" are quite at odds with each other I think They aren't because the journal corporations don't provide the curation, they provide the brand name that attracts heavy-hitting papers. The curation is provided by academics for free. The brand name ("impact factor" of historic papers in that journals) is the one thing that prevents migration.
- wilsonnb 8y ago
  At the end of the day, researchers need some way to decide which papers they should read and which they shouldn't. There are too many papers coming out for anyone to read them all. The fact that prestigious journals have a vested interest in not printing crap papers is a helpful filter when deciding what to read. I still think there should be some reform in this area but the journals do provide some value at the moment.