4 ms·
The steel man for the Elsevier side is that nobody is forcing scientists to submit content to Elsevier journals or to read Elsevier journals. It’s a product tha
by lacker 7y ago
The steel man for the Elsevier side is that nobody is forcing scientists to submit content to Elsevier journals or to read Elsevier journals. It’s a product that they create, so they have the right to price it as they see fit.
If Elsevier was really providing no value, why don’t scientists simply submit their work elsewhere? Clearly scientists and universities don’t really care about open access. If it was that important to them, they would just stop submitting content to non-open-access journals. The truth is that scientists care more about prestige than about open access. Elsevier puts a lot of work into making their journals prestigious, and scientists want that.
- braythwayt 7y agoIt's not "prestige." Framing it that way makes it sound like Elsevier is in the vanity business, and academics are vain. In actual fact, Elsevier is a gatekeeper to obtaining funding and making a living in research. Elsevier is rent-collecting, not selling an intangible feeling.
- hutzlibu 7y agoBecause prestige mostly equals funding in research ...
- warnick 7y agoAnd makes a difference in tenure decisions
- cybert00th 7y ago>Elsevier is rent-collecting, not selling an intangible feeling Got it in one! And until that changes, the status quo remains - regardless of sites like schihub
- im3w1l 7y agoSo let's go to the root of this. What is it that the funding agencies value in Elsevier publications? That if it's published there it's a mark of high quality research. Assuming Elsevier is killed off, someone else will have to put in the work of sifting good from bad. And that's not an easy problem, especially when many try to pervert the process for ideological gain.
- Vinnl 7y agoIt might not be an easy problem, but it's not a problem that has to be tied to publication, and it's not a problem that has to be pay-to-win. (Disclaimer: I'm part of a project that tries to sift the good from bad without those things.)
- a3_nm 7y ago> Assuming Elsevier is killed off, someone else will have to put in the work of sifting good from bad. All of this work is performed by unpaid reviewers, not by Elsevier themselves.
- im3w1l 7y agoElsevier delegates yes. But the buck still stops with them. They pick the reviewers, for one.
- kevinventullo 7y agoTo be fair, Elsevier has no direct say in how that funding gets distributed. This is decided by various foundations, NSF, etc., who choose to use publication in Elsevier-owned journals as a proxy for quality. (N.b. I am no fan of Elsevier, just trying to figure out how their power can be unwound)
- mirimir 7y agoThat's exactly backwards. Elsevier didn't create the high-prestige journals. They were originally published by universities and not-for-profit academic societies. And became prestigious over time, in one way or another. Elsevier just bought them, and has been raising prices and bleeding them out.
- a3_nm 7y ago> If Elsevier was really providing no value, why don’t scientists simply submit their work elsewhere? Clearly scientists and universities don’t really care about open access. If it was that important to them, they would just stop submitting content to non-open-access journals. The problem is coordination: everyone would like to stop, there would be a huge collective benefit if everyone stopped, but the first ones who stop will be penalized, so no one wants to be among the first. > Elsevier puts a lot of work into making their journals prestigious This gives the impression that the journals are prestigious thanks to Elsevier. In fact, what makes the journals prestigious is the hard work of paper authors and reviewers over the last decades, none of which were paid by Elsevier.