4 ms·

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 destro

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!
mrhappyunhappy 8y ago
Are we still talking about publicly funded research that’s being pay walled?
api 8y ago
I have to reluctantly agree. If there is one thing I've learned after 20 years on the open commercialized Internet its that any uncurated medium falls to spam, trolling, con artists, cranks, propaganda, and hoaxes. The bad stuff is easy to make and generally has better "viral" characteristics, so it drives out the good. The money is also very much on the side of quacks since absent regulation quackery is more profitable than real medicine. Hoaxes and tabloids are also more profitable than real news. Science without curation will fall to corporate shills and propagandists with political axes to grind. It's already bad enough but with no gatekeepers at all it would be a total free for all. Tobacco would become good for you again, homeopathy would work, etc. Curation can be democratic, but if so there must be a well thought out procedure for electing curators and a constitution or set of bylaws that is hard to amend. Science has a lot of power, so any scientific curation system is going to come under constant attack. We are living in the age of information warfare.
a3_nm 8y ago
There are plenty of conferences and journals with curation (peer review) which are free for readers and free or almost free for authors. For computer science, see, e.g., http://pierre.senellart.com/travaux/open-access/ http://pierre.senellart.com/travaux/open-access/
BlackFly 8y ago
Nobody is asking for science to be done for free, most motivations for open access come from people that realize that the biggest stakeholder in all of this is the public. Grant agencies receive money from taxes and those funds are devoted to science instead of other public projects. That the output of this work is not generally available to the public is the problem. Most researchers will never feel this problem since their libraries will have access to the journals that they need. Publishers in general will just charge for access and not see the issue. It is only when you go out as a member of the general public and attempt to read some journal article, presumably funded by your taxes, that you will realize that you haven't had a voice in all of this.

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!

mrhappyunhappy 8y ago

Are we still talking about publicly funded research that’s being pay walled?

api 8y ago

I have to reluctantly agree. If there is one thing I've learned after 20 years on the open commercialized Internet its that any uncurated medium falls to spam, trolling, con artists, cranks, propaganda, and hoaxes. The bad stuff is easy to make and generally has better "viral" characteristics, so it drives out the good. The money is also very much on the side of quacks since absent regulation quackery is more profitable than real medicine. Hoaxes and tabloids are also more profitable than real news. Science without curation will fall to corporate shills and propagandists with political axes to grind. It's already bad enough but with no gatekeepers at all it would be a total free for all. Tobacco would become good for you again, homeopathy would work, etc. Curation can be democratic, but if so there must be a well thought out procedure for electing curators and a constitution or set of bylaws that is hard to amend. Science has a lot of power, so any scientific curation system is going to come under constant attack. We are living in the age of information warfare.

a3_nm 8y ago

There are plenty of conferences and journals with curation (peer review) which are free for readers and free or almost free for authors. For computer science, see, e.g., http://pierre.senellart.com/travaux/open-access/ http://pierre.senellart.com/travaux/open-access/

BlackFly 8y ago

Nobody is asking for science to be done for free, most motivations for open access come from people that realize that the biggest stakeholder in all of this is the public. Grant agencies receive money from taxes and those funds are devoted to science instead of other public projects. That the output of this work is not generally available to the public is the problem. Most researchers will never feel this problem since their libraries will have access to the journals that they need. Publishers in general will just charge for access and not see the issue. It is only when you go out as a member of the general public and attempt to read some journal article, presumably funded by your taxes, that you will realize that you haven't had a voice in all of this.