4 ms·

It'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 gatekeep

It'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 ago
Because prestige mostly equals funding in research ...
- warnick 7y ago
  And 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 ago
So 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 ago
  It 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 ago
    Elsevier delegates yes. But the buck still stops with them. They pick the reviewers, for one.
kevinventullo 7y ago
To 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)

hutzlibu 7y ago

Because prestige mostly equals funding in research ...

warnick 7y ago
And 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 ago

So 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 ago
It 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 ago
  Elsevier delegates yes. But the buck still stops with them. They pick the reviewers, for one.

kevinventullo 7y ago

To 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)