5 ms·
there's a huge difference between publishing one really general public descriptive article for the whole field and stifling research by having actual research p
by 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 agoTheir 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 agoOne could argue good editing and curation is of high value. Not sure I buy it, but Arxiv certainly lacks curation or editing...
- modeless 8y agoConferences can fill that role instead. Their business model doesn't require paywalls or the copyright police.
- cossatot 8y agoAll 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 agoOf 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 agoThere must be some benefit to attending conferences, otherwise why would scientists attend them?
- modeless 8y agoThat's the whole point. Conferences can provide a benefit worth paying for without putting the research itself behind paywalls like journals do.
- setzer22 8y agoYeah, 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.
- flor1s 8y agoExcept that conference proceedings can be exactly like a journal, i.e. you often need to pay to access them.
- garmaine 8y agoSure, if the publisher actually provides that. They don’t. (Or rather, they farm it out to volunteer labor while collecting a fee anyway.)
- rocqua 8y agoThat just pushes out the argument by one level of indirection. The publishers 'curate and edit' the board of editors for their journals. In turn, these boards of editors curate and edit the articles that go into the journal.
- garmaine 8y agoNope, they don’t. The “volunteer” reviewers are drawn from past published authors, who in turn had their articles selected by previously published reviewers. Turtles all the way down.
- robotresearcher 8y agoThis is not true. Reviewers may or may not have been past authors. I have reviewed for many journals in which I have never published.
- thedailymail 8y agoNature journals actually do provide professional copyediting services for all articles accepted for publication. For commentaries (from my own experience), the editing process at Nature is quite intensive.
- Vinnl 8y ago> To my mind the legitimate argument is about publishers taking undeserved profits from unpaid labour while adding little value. That argument also comes down to hindering research. Funds that could otherwise be used for research are now used to buy subscriptions to this journal.