4 ms·

Deep learning, Yann LeCun, Yoshua Bengio & Geoffrey Hinton, Nature volume 521, pages 436–444 (28 May 2015) Strategy: publish in the high-impact established Nat

Deep learning, Yann LeCun, Yoshua Bengio & Geoffrey Hinton, Nature volume 521, pages 436–444 (28 May 2015) Strategy: publish in the high-impact established Nature-family journal, but publicly boycott the no-impact new Nature-family journal. Win-win. edit: added -family suffix to clarify that I completely understand these are two different journals from the same publisher. edit 2: I now understand why the editor of the new journal was hitting senior people up for personal meetings at ICRA last week. He didn't want to hear about our work: he wanted hints to help him on positioning.

backpropaganda 8y ago
They're boycotting the new Nature Machine Intelligence journal, not the old Nature journal. It's possible to be against a policy while still taking advantage of the policy for game theoretic reasons.
- robotresearcher 8y ago
  That's what 'win-win' means.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
make3 8y ago
there's a huge difference between publishing one really general public descriptive article for the whole field and stifling research by having actual research papers published in a closed journal. one doesn't hinder research, the other does
- robotresearcher 8y ago
  Their policy: "Nature Research journals support posting of primary research manuscripts on community preprint servers such as arXiv and bioRxiv. Preprint posting is not considered prior publication and will not jeopardize consideration at Nature Research journals." https://www.nature.com/authors/policies/license.html https://www.nature.com/authors/policies/license.html Standard practice in the modern AI community is preprint to arXiv first, then out to a journal for review. All the papers are free online before they even go to Nature. So this policy does not stifle or hinder research. They also do not take copyright - it stays with the authors - unlike other giants such as IEEE. To my mind the legitimate argument is about publishers taking undeserved profits from unpaid labour while adding little value. (edit: reordered sentences)
  - andreyk 8y ago
    One could argue good editing and curation is of high value. Not sure I buy it, but Arxiv certainly lacks curation or editing...
    - modeless 8y ago
      Conferences can fill that role instead. Their business model doesn't require paywalls or the copyright police.
      - cossatot 8y ago
        All the conferences in my field have literal security guards checking the badges that are only handed out after paying hundreds of dollars to register.
        modeless 8y ago
        Of course, but you don't need to attend the conference to read and benefit from the research, and that's the important thing. The journal business model usually requires restricting access to the research, while the conference business model still works when the research is free.
        dingo_bat 8y ago
        There must be some benefit to attending conferences, otherwise why would scientists attend them?
        modeless 8y ago
        That's the whole point. Conferences can provide a benefit worth paying for without putting the research itself behind paywalls like journals do.
        setzer22 8y ago
        Yeah, but it's usually more about a chance to socialize with other people in the field. It's also interesting to hear other people's talks that serve as a "teaser" for what's in the paper.

backpropaganda 8y ago

They're boycotting the new Nature Machine Intelligence journal, not the old Nature journal. It's possible to be against a policy while still taking advantage of the policy for game theoretic reasons.

robotresearcher 8y ago
That's what 'win-win' means.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

make3 8y ago

there's a huge difference between publishing one really general public descriptive article for the whole field and stifling research by having actual research papers published in a closed journal. one doesn't hinder research, the other does

robotresearcher 8y ago
Their policy: "Nature Research journals support posting of primary research manuscripts on community preprint servers such as arXiv and bioRxiv. Preprint posting is not considered prior publication and will not jeopardize consideration at Nature Research journals." https://www.nature.com/authors/policies/license.html https://www.nature.com/authors/policies/license.html Standard practice in the modern AI community is preprint to arXiv first, then out to a journal for review. All the papers are free online before they even go to Nature. So this policy does not stifle or hinder research. They also do not take copyright - it stays with the authors - unlike other giants such as IEEE. To my mind the legitimate argument is about publishers taking undeserved profits from unpaid labour while adding little value. (edit: reordered sentences)
- andreyk 8y ago
  One could argue good editing and curation is of high value. Not sure I buy it, but Arxiv certainly lacks curation or editing...
  - modeless 8y ago
    Conferences can fill that role instead. Their business model doesn't require paywalls or the copyright police.
    - cossatot 8y ago
      All the conferences in my field have literal security guards checking the badges that are only handed out after paying hundreds of dollars to register.
      - modeless 8y ago
        Of course, but you don't need to attend the conference to read and benefit from the research, and that's the important thing. The journal business model usually requires restricting access to the research, while the conference business model still works when the research is free.
        dingo_bat 8y ago
        There must be some benefit to attending conferences, otherwise why would scientists attend them?
        modeless 8y ago
        That's the whole point. Conferences can provide a benefit worth paying for without putting the research itself behind paywalls like journals do.
        setzer22 8y ago
        Yeah, but it's usually more about a chance to socialize with other people in the field. It's also interesting to hear other people's talks that serve as a "teaser" for what's in the paper.