5 ms·
The problem is that they used to be needed, in the pre-Internet era, so the entire academic community has evolved around the publishing ecosystem. Or rather, t
by natechols 8y ago
The problem is that they used to be needed, in the pre-Internet era, so the entire academic community has evolved around the publishing ecosystem. Or rather, the incentive system has evolved that way. Journals like Science/Nature/Cell are essentially the gatekeepers to tenure-track jobs at top universities, at least in the biomedical sciences. If you're a typical postdoc trying to move to the next stage of your career, "just post it on Biorxiv" isn't very helpful advice.
I would love nothing more than to see the entire publishing system revamped and parasites like Elsevier and NPG disappear, but until you solve the basic problem of academic hiring and promotion, it's an uphill battle.
- Vinnl 8y agoI agree. Right now the only way for universities or funders to know whether other researchers have thoroughly looked at and approved of the work of someone they're considering for tenure or a grant, is to look at whether their work has the stamp of approval of being published in a "reputable" journal. We need an alternative to that. (Full disclosure: I'm working on such an alternative. It just launched, but if any of you come across research you think it's good, do consider publicly endorsing it using https://plaudit.pub/extension/ https://plaudit.pub/extension/. It's all open data, and non-profit.)
- FabHK 8y agoI don't know. All the real power is in the hand of the academics. For example, Don Knuth managed to persuade the editorial board of the Elsevier Journal of Algorithms to resign, and they started the ACM Transactions on Algorithms with a different, lower-priced, not-for-profit publisher instead, and (if I understand correctly) take along the prestige. The Journal of Algorithms folded a few years later. Why oh why don't more editorial boards do this????