6 ms·

Here's a Twitter thread with a director at Elsevier (@mrgunn) making extremely snarky comments about why they think academia shouldn't be free and widely availa

Here's a Twitter thread with a director at Elsevier (@mrgunn) making extremely snarky comments about why they think academia shouldn't be free and widely available: https://twitter.com/dgmacarthur/status/1028489457803161600 https://twitter.com/dgmacarthur/status/1028489457803161600

gboudrias 8y ago
Is this telling us anything we didn't already know? Either way, I don't think he's helping the image issue.
icelancer 8y ago
Absolutely disgusting. What a disgrace to science. Alexandra Elbakyan has done and will do more for science than this rent-seeking asshole will ever do.
secabeen 8y ago
He claims that digital distribution isn't cheaper than analog. I don't doubt that, given the amounts of money it probably costs to build effective DRM and paywall systems. Were all journals open-access, their costs would be a lot lower too. Sci-Hub hosts 85% of the articles published in paywalled scholarly journals on a shoe-string.
- ben_jones 8y ago
  I think it should be acknowledged that there are likely a number of accessibility and similar requirements that at scale bear non-trivial costs. I.e. building a website with top of the line accessibility, providing resources for auditory and visually impared, etc. I'm not saying current publishers are great at these things, just that they should not be forgotten and should be improved on if a new order was to take shape.
  - secabeen 8y ago
    That's a good point, and accessibility of science is a big issue across the academy, as the Berkeley captioning case shows. The DRM/subscription piece of digital publishing is still probably the biggest cost of their model. I remember but can't find a citation for an apocryphal story that the administrative overhead of metering, tracking and billing phone calls in the Ma Bell days was more than 50% of the cost.
mirimir 8y ago
Shiran Pasternak ‏ @gingi0 Aug 13 Replying to @dgmacarthur What is a reasonable profit margin for a platform for communicating publicly funded research? Non-rhetorical question. mrgunn ‏ @mrgunn Aug 13 For a publicly traded company, the answer is "what the market will bear". Wow. Krista Jamieson offers a great perspective.
blazespin 8y ago
The real problem is that these publishers actually provide real value that gives them leverage over the industry. If they didn't, it'd be pretty easy to destroy their grip over academia. The idea that after 23 years of internet they've maintained their position via smart deals is ludicrous. They've maintained it because of useful curation. If there was a way to open source curation and not lose quality, I can't imagine anyone would disagree with that - even the people who work at these organisations. Unfortunately, what you end up with is arxiv, while very useful for sure, has no curation. Everyone just keeps bleeting - we want free! But they don't bother to think about how to do actually do it. How to ensure quality curation remains which is absolutely so critical to the advancement of science. I've been fantasizing about free everything since forever. Who hasn't? But at some point we have to stop trying to fantasize our way to results. This is like underpants gnomes logic - steal underpants .. .. .. .. quality curation! Also, MrGunn is a moron commenting on that thread. Why not just hand out free subscriptions to rare disease patients? What a trivially cost less PR move.
- mirimir 8y ago
  We had curation before we had commercial academic publishers. Professional societies handled it. Publishers just did the physical publishing, and didn't get copyright.
- jamesrcole 8y ago
  > these publishers actually provide real value ... If they didn't, it'd be pretty easy to destroy their grip over academia. Your argument equates to "they have maintained their grip, therefore they're providing real value". Their stranglehold seems to come primarily from academic incentives to publish in prestigious journals. > The idea that after 23 years of internet they've maintained their position via smart deals is ludicrous. Perhaps someone has claimed that, but I don't recall ever seeing that argument.
- FiveSquared 8y ago
  Scihub exists you know. There is! Volunteering,. fed grants, and donations. You even said it yourself that it was useful. Wikipedia is a great example of how to open source info. Also, ATTACK THE ARGUMENT, NOT THE PERSON!
mabbo 8y ago
What did you expect? I'm not saying that the guy is or isn't a horrible monster, but if he had ethical qualms with what Elsevier does or how it operates, he would have either changed it or left. The same goes for everyone who works there. They have either found a way to justify that what they do is ethical and okay, or would quit. That's just human nature.
mrhappyunhappy 8y ago
Holy shit! I guess in the age of trumpism nothing is a surprise anymore. Well, we have the brightest here on HN, how about someone make a go at a competitive solution?
sweezyjeezy 8y ago
I will never know why CEOs wade into Twitter spats like this. So little to be gained, so much to lose. Maybe lack of control of ego leads to better decisions elsewhere, I don't know...
- dempseye 8y ago
  I suppose you don't have to worry about reputational damage when everybody already thinks you're a parasite.

gboudrias 8y ago

Is this telling us anything we didn't already know? Either way, I don't think he's helping the image issue.

icelancer 8y ago

Absolutely disgusting. What a disgrace to science. Alexandra Elbakyan has done and will do more for science than this rent-seeking asshole will ever do.

secabeen 8y ago

He claims that digital distribution isn't cheaper than analog. I don't doubt that, given the amounts of money it probably costs to build effective DRM and paywall systems. Were all journals open-access, their costs would be a lot lower too. Sci-Hub hosts 85% of the articles published in paywalled scholarly journals on a shoe-string.

ben_jones 8y ago
I think it should be acknowledged that there are likely a number of accessibility and similar requirements that at scale bear non-trivial costs. I.e. building a website with top of the line accessibility, providing resources for auditory and visually impared, etc. I'm not saying current publishers are great at these things, just that they should not be forgotten and should be improved on if a new order was to take shape.
- secabeen 8y ago
  That's a good point, and accessibility of science is a big issue across the academy, as the Berkeley captioning case shows. The DRM/subscription piece of digital publishing is still probably the biggest cost of their model. I remember but can't find a citation for an apocryphal story that the administrative overhead of metering, tracking and billing phone calls in the Ma Bell days was more than 50% of the cost.

mirimir 8y ago

Shiran Pasternak ‏ @gingi0 Aug 13 Replying to @dgmacarthur What is a reasonable profit margin for a platform for communicating publicly funded research? Non-rhetorical question. mrgunn ‏ @mrgunn Aug 13 For a publicly traded company, the answer is "what the market will bear". Wow. Krista Jamieson offers a great perspective.

blazespin 8y ago

The real problem is that these publishers actually provide real value that gives them leverage over the industry. If they didn't, it'd be pretty easy to destroy their grip over academia. The idea that after 23 years of internet they've maintained their position via smart deals is ludicrous. They've maintained it because of useful curation. If there was a way to open source curation and not lose quality, I can't imagine anyone would disagree with that - even the people who work at these organisations. Unfortunately, what you end up with is arxiv, while very useful for sure, has no curation. Everyone just keeps bleeting - we want free! But they don't bother to think about how to do actually do it. How to ensure quality curation remains which is absolutely so critical to the advancement of science. I've been fantasizing about free everything since forever. Who hasn't? But at some point we have to stop trying to fantasize our way to results. This is like underpants gnomes logic - steal underpants .. .. .. .. quality curation! Also, MrGunn is a moron commenting on that thread. Why not just hand out free subscriptions to rare disease patients? What a trivially cost less PR move.

mirimir 8y ago
We had curation before we had commercial academic publishers. Professional societies handled it. Publishers just did the physical publishing, and didn't get copyright.
jamesrcole 8y ago
> these publishers actually provide real value ... If they didn't, it'd be pretty easy to destroy their grip over academia. Your argument equates to "they have maintained their grip, therefore they're providing real value". Their stranglehold seems to come primarily from academic incentives to publish in prestigious journals. > The idea that after 23 years of internet they've maintained their position via smart deals is ludicrous. Perhaps someone has claimed that, but I don't recall ever seeing that argument.
FiveSquared 8y ago
Scihub exists you know. There is! Volunteering,. fed grants, and donations. You even said it yourself that it was useful. Wikipedia is a great example of how to open source info. Also, ATTACK THE ARGUMENT, NOT THE PERSON!

mabbo 8y ago

What did you expect? I'm not saying that the guy is or isn't a horrible monster, but if he had ethical qualms with what Elsevier does or how it operates, he would have either changed it or left. The same goes for everyone who works there. They have either found a way to justify that what they do is ethical and okay, or would quit. That's just human nature.

mrhappyunhappy 8y ago

Holy shit! I guess in the age of trumpism nothing is a surprise anymore. Well, we have the brightest here on HN, how about someone make a go at a competitive solution?

sweezyjeezy 8y ago

I will never know why CEOs wade into Twitter spats like this. So little to be gained, so much to lose. Maybe lack of control of ego leads to better decisions elsewhere, I don't know...

dempseye 8y ago
I suppose you don't have to worry about reputational damage when everybody already thinks you're a parasite.