3 ms·
The popular Journals have an strange business, · By one side the Journal reclaim a high amount of money for being able TO TRY to publish on them (APCs fee), mo
by drtgh 3y ago
The popular Journals have an strange business,
· By one side the Journal reclaim a high amount of money for being able TO TRY to publish on them (APCs fee), more if one want to be published for to allow free access, as to read the publication in such Journals require subscription, are pay walled.
· By other side, the reviewers of such papers, academics and researchers from other universities, don't receive economical compensation for doing the review, while the taken APCs fee its supposed for doing it? only in few cases the review is compensated by some programs of the reviewer's university or other 3rd parties. Then, what is for all those pay-walls and publish-fees?
Sounds like a big filter... for what? for who? Because can be seen it's not working just as a mere "quality" filter.
Being a paper published in one of those popular Journals, or being done directly in medias like arXiv, both sources needs the same amount of "grain of salt" about what is being read, until others replicate experiments, or contrast theories.
So IMHO, outsider point of view, from time to time I have to use Sci-Hub in fact, I understand if they decide to don't publish in such popular Journals. I consider absolutely legitimate when they do it in distribution channels like arXiv.
What I really would like it were exists an open research platform without pay walled papers, like happens in arXiv, and in addition, peer reviews through the platform were possible, as to read such reviews, and also, equally important, to have available debates about the paper, like if it were hacker news format.
- blablabla123 3y ago> Sounds like a big filter... for what? for who? Because can be seen it's not working just as a mere "quality" filter. To me it seems it keeps not only a wall around papers and journals. But also about whole academia which is probably an unwanted side effect since inside and outside of academia there seems to be consensus that knowledge transfer could be better. Also it seems everybody who can rather does research outside (AI/ML, Chemistry, Pharmacy).
- godelski 3y agoI mostly agree with you. But I absolutely despise debates. They are more often than not worthless. They are based on charisma and how good you are at language, not facts. Discussion is the right word. I've often thought of pushing directly to OpenReview rather than just arxiv, but discussions can get off base quickly and novices can dominate (while academic Twitter is great, this happens there a lot). It is not our job as a researcher to communicate our ideas to laymen, that's the job of science communicators. Sure, it is great and a bonus, but please stop asking on my github how to do something that is in the pytorch intro tutorial. Read the tutorial or attend my class. Open discussions are nice in theory, but HN and Reddit are good examples at how these systems often get over burdened with noise. There's a catch-22 and so it is a tough call.
- still_grokking 3y ago> […] and in addition, peer reviews through the platform were possible, as to read such reviews, and also, equally important, to have available debates about the paper, […] Someone here mentioned: https://openreview.net https://openreview.net Looks exactly like what is asked for. Never heard about it though. Would need some more visibility (and word of mouth, I guess).