4 ms·

Are you aware that researchers voluntarily approach publishers? And if you are, what is your rationale in blaming the publisher? >Here's a couple: a) Gatekeepi

by ksk 8y ago

Are you aware that researchers voluntarily approach publishers? And if you are, what is your rationale in blaming the publisher? >Here's a couple: a) Gatekeeping publishers keep research from being available to less-elite schools that can't afford the subscriptions, creating a rich-get-richer dynamic in science. Leveling the playing field will lead to more-better output. >b) High subscription fees increase university fees, which translate directly into student loans. Sorry, but I didn't find them convincing. >As many have pointed out before, publicly funded research should be open access. That, we agree on 100%.

Vinnl 8y ago
I wouldn't state "voluntary" too strongly: https://medium.com/flockademic/the-ridiculous-number-that-can-make-or-break-academic-careers-704e00ae070a https://medium.com/flockademic/the-ridiculous-number-that-ca... Sure, I can offer you the choice between death or a slap in the face, but if you'd choose the slap in the face, I wouldn't say you voluntarily asked for the slap in the face...
- ksk 8y ago
  That dichotomy would only make sense if there were no means to self-publish or choosing a non-paywalled journal.
  - Vinnl 8y ago
    Well, those means are there (most of the time), but if researchers want a career in academia, most of the time there's no other option than submitting their work to "high impact" journals. I don't think sacrificing their already slim career choices is a reasonable sacrifice to ask when speaking of voluntarism.
    - ksk 8y ago
      >I don't think sacrificing their already slim career choices is a reasonable sacrifice to ask when speaking of voluntarism. Right, but I don't see how breaking copyright law is a solution to fixing the problem either. The journals are just going to jack up the rates to cover their "losses". Is there really no other way?
      - Vinnl 8y ago
        Well, it doesn't fix the greater problem of research being mostly behind disproportionately priced paywalls, but it does solve researchers' immediate problem of access to research. Yes, it's (mostly) illegal and no, I wouldn't endorse it, but I can't blame them too hard either, especially not by drawing on their "voluntary" paywalling of research. Long term, hopefully there are other ways, and there are plenty of people (including myself) trying to affect that change. If there was an easy way, I'm positive that we'd have found it already, unfortunately. That's not to say that change is in the air, and it might be for the better. (Btw, as for journals jacking up their rates: most of those rates are pretty non-standard, and the result of "Big Deal" negotiations with university libraries behind closed doors. However, both the pressure of Sci-Hub and publication of the results of some of those negotiations have led to the representatives of public money now having a much stronger negotiating position, so if anything, I'd only expect rates to go down in the short term.)
      - pdimitar 8y ago
        I am not very sure they can afford to jack up their rates. News in academia spreads really quickly and most researchers can't really afford to pay subs from their pockets. I know several researchers who are tragic with anything computer-related. Even they picked up SciHub mere days after it made the news for the first time. IMO jacking up prices in such a climate can succeed but is very risky.
bborud 8y ago
No, they do not voluntarily approach publishers. It is a faustian bargain in which society ultimately pays the price. I suspect that you either do not understand how academic reputation is built or you think it is somehow beneficial for society to ensure a system that makes scientific knowledge unavailable to anyone byt the elite.
- ksk 8y ago
  >No, they do not voluntarily approach publishers. What are you basing this on? >I suspect that you either do not understand how academic reputation is built or you think it is somehow beneficial for society to ensure a system that makes scientific knowledge unavailable to anyone byt the elite. Or neither. Its easy to think black/white, but thankfully the world is not so boring. I don't believe that any of the rationalizations that people have stated for breaking copyright law in this case. No, I don't agree that this is like slavery or student oppression or the driver of income inequality or the other myriad arguments people trot out.
  - sigmundur 8y ago
    Funny how you seem exempt from basing your hunches on citations. Clearly "voluntary" has been demonstrated to be a dubious term to use, with URL references. Researches either publish in high impact journals or lose funding. Publish or perish. Society loses out.
    - ksk 8y ago
      I use voluntary in the same way as the day to day common usage of the term. Seems to me you want it to mean "without personal sacrifice". I hope we can agree that it is not the commonly understood meaning of the term. > Researches either publish in high impact journals or lose funding. Publish or perish. Society loses out. I don't see how breaking copyright law addresses this.

by ksk 8y ago

Vinnl 8y ago

I wouldn't state "voluntary" too strongly: https://medium.com/flockademic/the-ridiculous-number-that-can-make-or-break-academic-careers-704e00ae070a https://medium.com/flockademic/the-ridiculous-number-that-ca... Sure, I can offer you the choice between death or a slap in the face, but if you'd choose the slap in the face, I wouldn't say you voluntarily asked for the slap in the face...

ksk 8y ago
That dichotomy would only make sense if there were no means to self-publish or choosing a non-paywalled journal.
- Vinnl 8y ago
  Well, those means are there (most of the time), but if researchers want a career in academia, most of the time there's no other option than submitting their work to "high impact" journals. I don't think sacrificing their already slim career choices is a reasonable sacrifice to ask when speaking of voluntarism.
  - ksk 8y ago
    >I don't think sacrificing their already slim career choices is a reasonable sacrifice to ask when speaking of voluntarism. Right, but I don't see how breaking copyright law is a solution to fixing the problem either. The journals are just going to jack up the rates to cover their "losses". Is there really no other way?
    - Vinnl 8y ago
      Well, it doesn't fix the greater problem of research being mostly behind disproportionately priced paywalls, but it does solve researchers' immediate problem of access to research. Yes, it's (mostly) illegal and no, I wouldn't endorse it, but I can't blame them too hard either, especially not by drawing on their "voluntary" paywalling of research. Long term, hopefully there are other ways, and there are plenty of people (including myself) trying to affect that change. If there was an easy way, I'm positive that we'd have found it already, unfortunately. That's not to say that change is in the air, and it might be for the better. (Btw, as for journals jacking up their rates: most of those rates are pretty non-standard, and the result of "Big Deal" negotiations with university libraries behind closed doors. However, both the pressure of Sci-Hub and publication of the results of some of those negotiations have led to the representatives of public money now having a much stronger negotiating position, so if anything, I'd only expect rates to go down in the short term.)
    - pdimitar 8y ago
      I am not very sure they can afford to jack up their rates. News in academia spreads really quickly and most researchers can't really afford to pay subs from their pockets. I know several researchers who are tragic with anything computer-related. Even they picked up SciHub mere days after it made the news for the first time. IMO jacking up prices in such a climate can succeed but is very risky.

bborud 8y ago

No, they do not voluntarily approach publishers. It is a faustian bargain in which society ultimately pays the price. I suspect that you either do not understand how academic reputation is built or you think it is somehow beneficial for society to ensure a system that makes scientific knowledge unavailable to anyone byt the elite.

ksk 8y ago
>No, they do not voluntarily approach publishers. What are you basing this on? >I suspect that you either do not understand how academic reputation is built or you think it is somehow beneficial for society to ensure a system that makes scientific knowledge unavailable to anyone byt the elite. Or neither. Its easy to think black/white, but thankfully the world is not so boring. I don't believe that any of the rationalizations that people have stated for breaking copyright law in this case. No, I don't agree that this is like slavery or student oppression or the driver of income inequality or the other myriad arguments people trot out.
- sigmundur 8y ago
  Funny how you seem exempt from basing your hunches on citations. Clearly "voluntary" has been demonstrated to be a dubious term to use, with URL references. Researches either publish in high impact journals or lose funding. Publish or perish. Society loses out.
  - ksk 8y ago
    I use voluntary in the same way as the day to day common usage of the term. Seems to me you want it to mean "without personal sacrifice". I hope we can agree that it is not the commonly understood meaning of the term. > Researches either publish in high impact journals or lose funding. Publish or perish. Society loses out. I don't see how breaking copyright law addresses this.