3 ms·

"force"? noun: "coercion or compulsion, esp. with the use or threat of violence" They are not using force. If they did it'd be awful. But because they are doi

"force"? noun: "coercion or compulsion, esp. with the use or threat of violence" They are not using force. If they did it'd be awful. But because they are doing this peacefully, with no force, it's good. Making a free, voluntary choice a trade or contract -- whether to accept or to decline -- is the epitome of not using force. Not using any force is one of the things that makes them legitimate. They should emphasize that instead of talking about it in terms like, "But the fight for open access is just getting started." It's not a fight. Don't pretend you're fighting, that just makes you look bad. Especially when you aren't even fighting! Don't use metaphor to make your side look worse.

jostmey 15y ago
Have you ever worked in a research lab? Then you would know jut how essential it is to have access to the originals studies and prior work. Scientific research cannot be done without access to the scientific literature. These journal companies are charging Universities millions of dollars annually. And when I say millions annually, they charge each and every separate University library millions of dollars. Yet, all these companies do is host a few hundred thousand PDF documents. I could do that for a about a hundred dollars a year on Dreamhost. The journal companies essentially have a monopoly on the market. They must and should be broken up for the good of scientific research. The studies were funded by the public, and should be accessible to the public.
- rflrob 15y ago
  > The journal companies essentially have a monopoly on the market. They must and should be broken up for the good of scientific research. The studies were funded by the public, and should be accessible to the public. The problem is that almost by definition, they have a monopoly on "the market", since each paper is unique and non-fungible, and therefore arguably a separate market. A university can't decide not to subscribe to Cell, for example, and instead get the same research from other journals. This is a good thing (since it means research effort isn't being duplicated), but it means you can't just "break up" a publisher to bring pricing in line with a competitive market.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - jostmey 15y ago
    What I find utterly dumbfounding is how some of the journals get away with charging everyone money. First, the journals charge the labs publishing fees. Then, the journals turn around and charge the Universities access fees. It is sheer lunacy. I wish the NIH or NSF would require that all published studies from their grants be placed in the public domain.
    - tingletech 15y ago
      I think NIH does, it is called pub med central. (well, this is not technically public domain; but rather open access)
- xenophanes 15y ago
  You seem to not be listening very well. I talked about force. I think you disagree with me but you don't say so directly. Who are you saying is or isn't using force? What did I say that you disagree with? Did you get the wrong idea that I was defending the journal companies? So your angry emotions got the better of you? I didn't defend them. I said the researchers are even better than the article suggests. As far as I can tell that puts us on the same side, yet you're pissed off and ranting at me.
  - xenophanes 15y ago
    Why does no one understand what I said in this thread and I'm just being mass downvoted? EDIT: downvoting this too, still with zero explanation? this didn't used to happen. maybe HN really is getting worse.
    - brazzy 15y ago
      Or maybe your comment was just an instance not very useful (and downright wrong) nitpicking. Arguing that a large-scale, organized boycott does not constitute "coercion or compulsion" or that anything that does not involve physical violence should not be called a "fight" is just inane.
      - xenophanes 15y ago
        Why is that "insane"? Do you believe I'm mentally ill? How is it "nitpicking" to talk about whether something uses violence or not?
        brazzy 15y ago
        I did not write "insane". I wrote "inane", which was not a typo. It's nitpicking to argue about the definition of words, especially when the usage you're criticizing is a widely accepted figurative use.

jostmey 15y ago

Have you ever worked in a research lab? Then you would know jut how essential it is to have access to the originals studies and prior work. Scientific research cannot be done without access to the scientific literature. These journal companies are charging Universities millions of dollars annually. And when I say millions annually, they charge each and every separate University library millions of dollars. Yet, all these companies do is host a few hundred thousand PDF documents. I could do that for a about a hundred dollars a year on Dreamhost. The journal companies essentially have a monopoly on the market. They must and should be broken up for the good of scientific research. The studies were funded by the public, and should be accessible to the public.

rflrob 15y ago
> The journal companies essentially have a monopoly on the market. They must and should be broken up for the good of scientific research. The studies were funded by the public, and should be accessible to the public. The problem is that almost by definition, they have a monopoly on "the market", since each paper is unique and non-fungible, and therefore arguably a separate market. A university can't decide not to subscribe to Cell, for example, and instead get the same research from other journals. This is a good thing (since it means research effort isn't being duplicated), but it means you can't just "break up" a publisher to bring pricing in line with a competitive market.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- jostmey 15y ago
  What I find utterly dumbfounding is how some of the journals get away with charging everyone money. First, the journals charge the labs publishing fees. Then, the journals turn around and charge the Universities access fees. It is sheer lunacy. I wish the NIH or NSF would require that all published studies from their grants be placed in the public domain.
  - tingletech 15y ago
    I think NIH does, it is called pub med central. (well, this is not technically public domain; but rather open access)
xenophanes 15y ago
You seem to not be listening very well. I talked about force. I think you disagree with me but you don't say so directly. Who are you saying is or isn't using force? What did I say that you disagree with? Did you get the wrong idea that I was defending the journal companies? So your angry emotions got the better of you? I didn't defend them. I said the researchers are even better than the article suggests. As far as I can tell that puts us on the same side, yet you're pissed off and ranting at me.
- xenophanes 15y ago
  Why does no one understand what I said in this thread and I'm just being mass downvoted? EDIT: downvoting this too, still with zero explanation? this didn't used to happen. maybe HN really is getting worse.
  - brazzy 15y ago
    Or maybe your comment was just an instance not very useful (and downright wrong) nitpicking. Arguing that a large-scale, organized boycott does not constitute "coercion or compulsion" or that anything that does not involve physical violence should not be called a "fight" is just inane.
    - xenophanes 15y ago
      Why is that "insane"? Do you believe I'm mentally ill? How is it "nitpicking" to talk about whether something uses violence or not?
      - brazzy 15y ago
        I did not write "insane". I wrote "inane", which was not a typo. It's nitpicking to argue about the definition of words, especially when the usage you're criticizing is a widely accepted figurative use.