5 ms·
This work was published in “Nature Machine Intelligence“, the journal boycotted by pretty much everyone who matters in ML. Reflects poorly on the authors, rega
by p1esk 8y ago
This work was published in “Nature Machine Intelligence“, the journal boycotted by pretty much everyone who matters in ML.
Reflects poorly on the authors, regardless of the actual merits of their finding.
- fucking_tragedy 8y agoAs someone who isn't in the know, I found this[1] Forbes article about the journal. Forbes portrays the opposition as opposing the fact that it's a closed access journal, but are there other points of contention that weren't reported in the article? [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/samshead/2018/04/30/tech-giant-ai-researchers-boycott-nature-machine-intelligence-journal/#2da5033e5e01 https://www.forbes.com/sites/samshead/2018/04/30/tech-giant-...
- freeone3000 8y agoThat's enough. ML research is posted on arxiv and presented in open conferences. You can paywall your slide deck but not your paper. If pay-to-play journals get even an inch, they'll try to take everything.
- mmmmpancakes 8y agoWhat does “open conferences” mean? Last time I checked, fees for participating in ML related conferences are very high (compared to registration fees for conferences in academic fields with less hype). This makes them less open because cost is a financial barrier to participation.
- gus_massa 8y agoAlso, if you live outside USA/Europe, let's go to a important conference may be a few thousand of dollars more expensive that sending an email to the editor with the draft of the paper. [Hi from Argentina!]
- msfalcon 8y agoThe proceedings are freely available online and most sessions are freely casted. Attending the conference in person has surely some cost!
- joe_the_user 8y agoAs far as I can tell, the article isn't really of any interest either. Formulating a proposition that is independent of standard axioms is simple. Formulating it in the language of machine learn is an exercise. The main thing is the authors didn't provide any motivation for this to matter to the overall enterprise of machine learning, because there isn't motivation for this. It's just a novelty.
- sologoub 8y agoHad to lookup what the boycott was about - free access and fees: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/05/why-are-ai-researchers-boycotting-new-nature-journal-and-shunning-others http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/05/why-are-ai-researcher...
- chestervonwinch 8y agowhat's the reason it's boycotted? appeal to authority isn't very informative for those not keeping up with this stuff
- saagarjha 8y agoSubscription fee requirements for access, mostly.
- jacoblambda 8y agoand fees for publishing. i.e. Why should people have to pay to view the results of what is often publicly funded research? Even more so why should researchers have to pay to publish work that the publishers profit off of but the researchers don't.
- eanzenberg 8y agoBecause being a peer reviewer shouldn’t be done for free? Do you like being paid to work? Because Nature has established themselves as a premier journal over the the past 150 years and are known for their quality? Or maybe I’m just taking crazy pills..
- etrautmann 8y agoPeer reviewers are not ever paid, making this whole arrangement somewhat bizarre and unsavory to reviewers and authors alike.
- hannob 8y agoThere's a strange thing, there seems to be a universal rule of Open Access discussions: There will always be someone who defends publishers based on not knowing anything about how scientific publishing works.
- svat 8y agoMy favourite article about open access, about the Journal of Machine Learning Research, and really the ultimate smackdown, all done very politely: https://blogs.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2012/03/06/an-efficient-journal/ https://blogs.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2012/03/06/an-efficient-j...
- plaidfuji 8y agoWhich would also explain why Nature wrote this publicity piece on it. I can only hope that ML researchers show the rest of academia the way out of publishers' hands.