4 ms·

SciHub is a beacon of light. The scientific publishing industry is corrupt and needs to burn.

by geysersam 4y ago

junofan 4y ago
There’s some good. e.g. Nature editors in general have their heads screwed on. How do we preserve that?
- ecshafer 4y ago
  Why do we need editors for scientific journals? They are an unnecessary gatekeeper, people can read a paper and decide for themselves. The peer review process is independent of the editors. And the system of gatekeepers is what has helped push the publish or perish aspects of academia.
  - eldaisfish 4y ago
    Be careful when wishing for absolutes. Editors serve a vital role as the first line of defence against BS publications. They are vital gatekeepers and separate the wheat from the chaff. The problem is the likes of Elsevier and their outrageous profit margins.
    - raxxorraxor 4y ago
      I think they have the same flaws as newspaper editors, their own bias can lead to false data and science. If they are required we would still need a mechanism for control. We just need a better system for QA in general.
  - endisneigh 4y ago
    Is anyone forcing scientists to publish in journals?
    - _yb2s 4y ago
      Yes, science careers are highly competitive, and evaluated based on the journals you publish in. If you don't publish in top journals, you are out.
      - endisneigh 4y ago
        You can be a scientist without publishing in top journals.
        nordsieck 4y ago
        > You can be a scientist without publishing in top journals. But you can't be a scientist without obtaining grant money. And publishing - particularly in top journals - is the major way to accomplish that.
        endisneigh 4y ago
        You can be a scientist without grant money, though. Most “scientists” are not published in these so called top journals.
        dncjvhvusy 4y ago
        Last I checked a scientist can be anyone that does research.
        8bitsrule 4y ago
        Research can be done well or poorly. Good research with no outlet is not worth a whole lot more. Fine example: Newton needed an angel to get Principia Mathematica published. It was edited, paid-for and seen through press by Edmond Halley. (Halley was not rich. He was lucky that it sold.) https://web.archive.org/web/20120512123330/http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/history/Biographies/Halley.html https://web.archive.org/web/20120512123330/http://www-groups...
        asdff 4y ago
  - thrdbndndn 4y ago
    I haven't form my opinion on the gatekeeping nature of the academic journals, so I won't comment on that. But editors surely are needed for purposes like, well, editing, and all the administrative tasks? They are at least as useful as the secretaries at your companies (i.e. very).
  - asdff 4y ago
    Editors are essential for jockeying the peer reviewers. It does happen sometimes where you get a malicious peer reviewer. Maybe they don't understand the science, maybe the conclusions disagree with ones from their own work, maybe you are scooping their current work without realizing it, or maybe they just have an axe to grind with your principle investigator. I've seen it happen and it can be ugly, but the editor serves as a backstop here. They can look at what both of you are saying as the adult in the room, and usually they assign a new reviewer. Editors are also the whip for lazy reviewers, since they set the deadlines.
- civilized 4y ago
  - Academics resign en masse from journal boards for whom they perform unpaid labor and form their own lightweight nonprofit groups. - The purpose of these nonprofit groups is to select submissions for peer review and acceptance to their "journal". - The "journal" can be simply a website with a list of links to the arXiv. Hosting and serving the articles is optional. Versions of this plan have already been successfully executed by academics, perhaps most famously in the editorial revolts against Elsevier's topology journals [1]. The associated nonprofits continue to operate the new open access journals successfully [2,3]. These organizations don't just outsource to arXiv, but you could if you were a group of busy academics who wanted to keep it as simple and lightweight as possible. [1] https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=442 https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=442 [2] https://msp.org/ https://msp.org/ [3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Topology https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Topology
beebmam 4y ago
Are you also of the opinion that copyright shouldn't exist? If not, how do you reconcile this belief with the right of scientists and publishers to sell their productive labor?
- imglorp 4y ago
  The publishers are not paying scientists for their labor. That's the problem. They are gatekeeping middle-leeches, impeding humanity's progress by paywalling science.
- tiagod 4y ago
  1. Scientists usually don't see a dime of the money publishers make selling access to their research; 2. In many cases, publicly funded research is gated behind paywalls; 3. In many (most?) cases, peer reviewer are paid nothing or close to it. 4. Most researchers I know either use sci-hub, other so called illegal sources for papers, or ask the authors for a copy.
  - function_seven 4y ago
    5. Scientific inquiry is about discovering facts about our world, universe, and selves. It’s a different category from creative endeavors like art, literature, film, etc.
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  if you were concerned about incomes of scientists, then you would support copyright or patents on scientific discoveries. You would support ability to patent the law of gravity. If you do not, then you atr only concerned about publishers. They dont pay scientists. They dont pay for researchm You support parasites.
- voz_ 4y ago
  Odd straw man, but I guess I’ll tilt at it a bit. I don’t understand copyright existing beyond a few years after publication, and I don’t understand how a “right” to a work can be sold. It seems to be a system designed to facilitate wealth extraction rather than value creation.
refurb 4y ago
The scientific publishing industry is corrupt and needs to burn. What's stopping scientists from just not publishing in those for-profit journals? I mean, it's their paper.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- codebje 4y ago
  Institutions often reward publication in more impactful journals, and careers are built on your publication history. Journals also often require that you assign copyright to them and restrict your ability to publish in more accessible places.
- kerkeslager 4y ago
  Universities expect you to have publications in peer-reviewed journals. In many fields there aren't alternatives to for-profit journals, and in fields which do have alternatives, many academics don't know the alternatives exist.
- thrdbndndn 4y ago
  I think a common misunderstanding, often held on HN/Reddit, is that the academia themselves also hate journal publishing industry as much. I mean, of course none of us like them, and everyone hates the pressure that you have to publish papers to keep your job or to be promoted. But all these are independent to how the industry makes money and especially very irrelevant to the fact that most of journals aren't open-access. Almost all universities/institutions have subscriptions of majority of journals. And most "proper" journals don't charge you (the authors) a fee to publish. Yes, they usually don't pay you when they asked you to review, which sucks. But the whole thing isn't as bad from a practical perspective. Again it's still a annoyance from time to time, just not that bad. Furthermore, unfortunately, a way to judge how good you're at research would be needed anyway. If the journal publishing industry died overnight, there would be other metric coming up and as toxic. TL;DR: scientific publishing industry is a leech but they leech on the fact scientists/researchers needing a way to build their prestige. Not on them directly. That's why most don't have a too strong opinion or act on it.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
truetraveller 4y ago
Corruption usually involves multiple parties. It really is the universities that are corrupt equally, if not more.
dilawar 4y ago
eLife needs a honorable mention here. They are doing pretty good job in open publishing and publish quality research. Now they are taking it up a notch higher and will publish all articles accepted for reviews. Its upto the OP to respond to reviews the way they want. Paper will be published along with all reviews and responses. Reader can figure out the rest.

SciHub is a beacon of light. The scientific publishing industry is corrupt and needs to burn.

junofan 4y ago

There’s some good. e.g. Nature editors in general have their heads screwed on. How do we preserve that?

ecshafer 4y ago
Why do we need editors for scientific journals? They are an unnecessary gatekeeper, people can read a paper and decide for themselves. The peer review process is independent of the editors. And the system of gatekeepers is what has helped push the publish or perish aspects of academia.
- eldaisfish 4y ago
  Be careful when wishing for absolutes. Editors serve a vital role as the first line of defence against BS publications. They are vital gatekeepers and separate the wheat from the chaff. The problem is the likes of Elsevier and their outrageous profit margins.
  - raxxorraxor 4y ago
    I think they have the same flaws as newspaper editors, their own bias can lead to false data and science. If they are required we would still need a mechanism for control. We just need a better system for QA in general.
- endisneigh 4y ago
  Is anyone forcing scientists to publish in journals?
  - _yb2s 4y ago
    Yes, science careers are highly competitive, and evaluated based on the journals you publish in. If you don't publish in top journals, you are out.
    - endisneigh 4y ago
      You can be a scientist without publishing in top journals.
      - nordsieck 4y ago
        > You can be a scientist without publishing in top journals. But you can't be a scientist without obtaining grant money. And publishing - particularly in top journals - is the major way to accomplish that.
        endisneigh 4y ago
        You can be a scientist without grant money, though. Most “scientists” are not published in these so called top journals.
        dncjvhvusy 4y ago
        Last I checked a scientist can be anyone that does research.
        8bitsrule 4y ago
        Research can be done well or poorly. Good research with no outlet is not worth a whole lot more. Fine example: Newton needed an angel to get Principia Mathematica published. It was edited, paid-for and seen through press by Edmond Halley. (Halley was not rich. He was lucky that it sold.) https://web.archive.org/web/20120512123330/http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/history/Biographies/Halley.html https://web.archive.org/web/20120512123330/http://www-groups...
        asdff 4y ago
- thrdbndndn 4y ago
  I haven't form my opinion on the gatekeeping nature of the academic journals, so I won't comment on that. But editors surely are needed for purposes like, well, editing, and all the administrative tasks? They are at least as useful as the secretaries at your companies (i.e. very).
- asdff 4y ago
  Editors are essential for jockeying the peer reviewers. It does happen sometimes where you get a malicious peer reviewer. Maybe they don't understand the science, maybe the conclusions disagree with ones from their own work, maybe you are scooping their current work without realizing it, or maybe they just have an axe to grind with your principle investigator. I've seen it happen and it can be ugly, but the editor serves as a backstop here. They can look at what both of you are saying as the adult in the room, and usually they assign a new reviewer. Editors are also the whip for lazy reviewers, since they set the deadlines.
civilized 4y ago
- Academics resign en masse from journal boards for whom they perform unpaid labor and form their own lightweight nonprofit groups. - The purpose of these nonprofit groups is to select submissions for peer review and acceptance to their "journal". - The "journal" can be simply a website with a list of links to the arXiv. Hosting and serving the articles is optional. Versions of this plan have already been successfully executed by academics, perhaps most famously in the editorial revolts against Elsevier's topology journals [1]. The associated nonprofits continue to operate the new open access journals successfully [2,3]. These organizations don't just outsource to arXiv, but you could if you were a group of busy academics who wanted to keep it as simple and lightweight as possible. [1] https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=442 https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=442 [2] https://msp.org/ https://msp.org/ [3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Topology https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Topology

beebmam 4y ago

Are you also of the opinion that copyright shouldn't exist? If not, how do you reconcile this belief with the right of scientists and publishers to sell their productive labor?

imglorp 4y ago
The publishers are not paying scientists for their labor. That's the problem. They are gatekeeping middle-leeches, impeding humanity's progress by paywalling science.
tiagod 4y ago
1. Scientists usually don't see a dime of the money publishers make selling access to their research; 2. In many cases, publicly funded research is gated behind paywalls; 3. In many (most?) cases, peer reviewer are paid nothing or close to it. 4. Most researchers I know either use sci-hub, other so called illegal sources for papers, or ask the authors for a copy.
- function_seven 4y ago
  5. Scientific inquiry is about discovering facts about our world, universe, and selves. It’s a different category from creative endeavors like art, literature, film, etc.
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
if you were concerned about incomes of scientists, then you would support copyright or patents on scientific discoveries. You would support ability to patent the law of gravity. If you do not, then you atr only concerned about publishers. They dont pay scientists. They dont pay for researchm You support parasites.
voz_ 4y ago
Odd straw man, but I guess I’ll tilt at it a bit. I don’t understand copyright existing beyond a few years after publication, and I don’t understand how a “right” to a work can be sold. It seems to be a system designed to facilitate wealth extraction rather than value creation.

refurb 4y ago

The scientific publishing industry is corrupt and needs to burn. What's stopping scientists from just not publishing in those for-profit journals? I mean, it's their paper.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
codebje 4y ago
Institutions often reward publication in more impactful journals, and careers are built on your publication history. Journals also often require that you assign copyright to them and restrict your ability to publish in more accessible places.
kerkeslager 4y ago
Universities expect you to have publications in peer-reviewed journals. In many fields there aren't alternatives to for-profit journals, and in fields which do have alternatives, many academics don't know the alternatives exist.
thrdbndndn 4y ago
I think a common misunderstanding, often held on HN/Reddit, is that the academia themselves also hate journal publishing industry as much. I mean, of course none of us like them, and everyone hates the pressure that you have to publish papers to keep your job or to be promoted. But all these are independent to how the industry makes money and especially very irrelevant to the fact that most of journals aren't open-access. Almost all universities/institutions have subscriptions of majority of journals. And most "proper" journals don't charge you (the authors) a fee to publish. Yes, they usually don't pay you when they asked you to review, which sucks. But the whole thing isn't as bad from a practical perspective. Again it's still a annoyance from time to time, just not that bad. Furthermore, unfortunately, a way to judge how good you're at research would be needed anyway. If the journal publishing industry died overnight, there would be other metric coming up and as toxic. TL;DR: scientific publishing industry is a leech but they leech on the fact scientists/researchers needing a way to build their prestige. Not on them directly. That's why most don't have a too strong opinion or act on it.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

truetraveller 4y ago

Corruption usually involves multiple parties. It really is the universities that are corrupt equally, if not more.

dilawar 4y ago

eLife needs a honorable mention here. They are doing pretty good job in open publishing and publish quality research. Now they are taking it up a notch higher and will publish all articles accepted for reviews. Its upto the OP to respond to reviews the way they want. Paper will be published along with all reviews and responses. Reader can figure out the rest.