3 ms·

The current business model of publishers is predatory and harms science more than it helps, but I see self publishing and private open source initiatives as equ

The current business model of publishers is predatory and harms science more than it helps, but I see self publishing and private open source initiatives as equally problematic. The definitive long-term solution, in my view, is a centralized public repository, like the Library of Congress. Call it the Federal Scientific Repository or the National Research Papers Database. It would be funded by Congress, or the LoC, and peer review would still occur. But the process of publishing papers in journals with editors and letters to the editor, as well as the environmental and financial expense of printing thousands of paper copies of these publications and shipping them to universities around the country, will cease. The hundreds (if not thousands) of thick volumes on the shelves of university libraries are never consulted by anybody - researchers use the Internet - and take up too much valuable space. It's time the research world catches up.

dredmorbius 7y ago
The adjacent-possible path to that all but certainly involves something that very closely resembles Sci-Hub, to demonstrate that the alternative of continuing proprietary publishing will not function. Without a Sci-Hub-like option, the political pressure on government (and likely: university) archives to not provide free-to-the-public services will likely continue. Only the continued persistence of a truly free option, in flagrant violation of an unjust and immoral legal environment, can break down that wall.
Nasrudith 7y ago
How on earth can self publishing and open source even be problematic? Let alone equally so as ones whose only role is profiteering by restricting public spread only by if they get their cut or not and providing no validation - peer reviewers.
- wayoutthere 7y ago
  It's the same "discovery problem" that every long tail market encounters: a significant portion of the tail is going to be either low-quality or irrelevant to most consumers of that domain. So you need aggregators, and those aggregators will face pressure to moderate the long tail by surfacing the most relevant results, while also still providing access to the tail in some form (see also Ben Thompson's aggregation theory [1]). Unfortunately, this dynamic is more social than anything: there can only be so many aggregators that can occupy the zeitgeist. That scarcity of attention leads to rent-seeking behavior, which is the main problem with academic journals. The current situation is probably approaching optimal; large institutions fund the moderation and aggregation through journal subscriptions, while access is widely available via Sci-Hub. Without a profit motive, such moderation would be even more politically-driven than it is today. At the same time, the Sci-Hub community does need to ensure its continued existence because it is such a massive boon to science writ large. [1] https://stratechery.com/2015/aggregation-theory/ https://stratechery.com/2015/aggregation-theory/
  - xamuel 7y ago
    The "moderation" part of journals, the editorship and peer review, is already performed virtually entirely by volunteers.

dredmorbius 7y ago

The adjacent-possible path to that all but certainly involves something that very closely resembles Sci-Hub, to demonstrate that the alternative of continuing proprietary publishing will not function. Without a Sci-Hub-like option, the political pressure on government (and likely: university) archives to not provide free-to-the-public services will likely continue. Only the continued persistence of a truly free option, in flagrant violation of an unjust and immoral legal environment, can break down that wall.

Nasrudith 7y ago

How on earth can self publishing and open source even be problematic? Let alone equally so as ones whose only role is profiteering by restricting public spread only by if they get their cut or not and providing no validation - peer reviewers.

wayoutthere 7y ago
It's the same "discovery problem" that every long tail market encounters: a significant portion of the tail is going to be either low-quality or irrelevant to most consumers of that domain. So you need aggregators, and those aggregators will face pressure to moderate the long tail by surfacing the most relevant results, while also still providing access to the tail in some form (see also Ben Thompson's aggregation theory [1]). Unfortunately, this dynamic is more social than anything: there can only be so many aggregators that can occupy the zeitgeist. That scarcity of attention leads to rent-seeking behavior, which is the main problem with academic journals. The current situation is probably approaching optimal; large institutions fund the moderation and aggregation through journal subscriptions, while access is widely available via Sci-Hub. Without a profit motive, such moderation would be even more politically-driven than it is today. At the same time, the Sci-Hub community does need to ensure its continued existence because it is such a massive boon to science writ large. [1] https://stratechery.com/2015/aggregation-theory/ https://stratechery.com/2015/aggregation-theory/
- xamuel 7y ago
  The "moderation" part of journals, the editorship and peer review, is already performed virtually entirely by volunteers.