3 ms·

> Just make it accessible. We already have that system, it's called the internet. Nothing stops you or I from putting our ideas online for all to read, commen

by ska 3y ago

> Just make it accessible. We already have that system, it's called the internet. Nothing stops you or I from putting our ideas online for all to read, comment on, update, etc. The role of the publishers, flawed as it is, has little to do with the physical cost of producing or providing an article, and is filling (one can argue badly) a role in curation and archival that is clearly needed. Any proposal to change the system really has to address how those roles are met, hopefully cheaper than currently but definitely not more expensive because mostly people don't get paid (in $ or career or anything) now - or has to provide a funding source for it. I don't really see how your outlined scenario addresses that, at least not in a way that's functionally different than today. Can you expand?

paulmd 3y ago
> We already have that system, it's called the internet. Nothing stops you or I from putting our ideas online for all to read, comment on, update, etc. Are you asking how arxiv is different from blogspot?
- ska 3y ago
  No, although the mechanism for hosting the content aren’t that important. Preprint servers are very useful but haven’t replaced journals for good reasons.
  - staunton 3y ago
    What are those reasons? The only thing I see that journals do which preprint servers couldn't easily take over is prestige.
    - ska 3y ago
      You have the causality wrong. Prestige comes to journals by doing a good (or at least, better than peers) job of being a journal, which is providing a necessary function to the academic research process. If you want to improve on that system, you have to improve on those functions, or reduce the reliance on them by providing something better. Put it another way, if you can design a system with a better ROC curve for classifying research, with a better TP rate for good papers, and have it cost less in real terms that current academic papers, then you are on to something. If all you've got is "papers should be free" or "it's too hard to access publishing from the outside" what you have are complaints, not solutions.
      - staunton 3y ago
        Like I said, it's not clear to me what exactly established journals have been doing "better" historically than a preprint server could. You say they are better at "being a journal" -- OK. They are established, well connected (to science communities, industry, journalism, funding agencies, etc.) and have been maintaining a reputation for a long time, usually much longer than preprint servers exist. That's basically prestige, which isn't nothing (I didn't claim prestige is nothing). However, this doesn't demonstrate journals do anything relevant to the advancement of science fundamentally better right now. What I "have" is that 1. It's not obvious that a journal is fundamentally better at organizing unpaid voluntary reviewers compared to a preprint server. 2. Scientific publishing has insanely high profit margins. How come? My theory is that they are selling prestige first and foremost, i.e., a luxury good, (to scientists, universities and funding agencies simultaneously) and purchasing decisions there are made by people who are spending public money, not their own. Both of these points (luxury good, public spending) seem like strong contributors to high margins. The public is paying for the research and for access to articles, while journals nowadays on first glance seem to only provide a little bit of web hosting, a little bit of reviewer coordination and a little bit of manuscript editing. 3. It's not obvious that the submission and peer review systems we have now (in journals) is worth the time and effort. The role of peer review is misrepresented in journalism and the expectations are not met. If one could separate publication ("preprint") on one side, and, on the other side, review and "being featured by important outlets or institutions", authors could save a lot of time time (that could be used for more research). Others would have access to interesting results earlier and be able to build on top of them. Next, in a separate process some institution could select important works, scrutinize and review them, perhaps paying experts to do so, and perhaps replicate where appropriate. The issue with this is that academics need the prestige provided by journals for career advancement, universities need the prestige to justify their spending to funding agencies and politicians, and funding agencies likewise need the prestige to justify their spending to politicians. The "replication crisis" and the like indicate that this prestige is overvalued. The hope is, economically speaking, that the market for "academic prestige" can either be disrupted, or the price the public has to pay can be lowered "through competition". It's interesting what that might look like. Preprint servers, open data and more direct science communication seem like steps in the right direction.
geysersam 3y ago
That's just not true. Most publicly fundes research is hidden behind paywalls.
- ska 3y ago
  No it's exactly true. You can write up anything you want and put it on a site. The post I was replying to was suggesting an open access system (both read and write) for exchanging ideas. This exists. What it doesn't do is effectively replace the non-open system for access to academic journals. I have a lot of sympathy for open (read) access to research, particularly publicly funded. It just isn't sensible to wave a wand and say "all papers are free to read now" without some plan for the other parts of the system and the ecosystem (academic research) that relies on it.
  - geysersam 3y ago
    Why do you think that peer review needs the journals to function?
    - ska 3y ago
      I didn't say that. It needs something. Handwaving about an emergent community isn't useful - moving from todays system to something else needs something concrete.

by ska 3y ago

paulmd 3y ago

> We already have that system, it's called the internet. Nothing stops you or I from putting our ideas online for all to read, comment on, update, etc. Are you asking how arxiv is different from blogspot?

ska 3y ago
No, although the mechanism for hosting the content aren’t that important. Preprint servers are very useful but haven’t replaced journals for good reasons.
- staunton 3y ago
  What are those reasons? The only thing I see that journals do which preprint servers couldn't easily take over is prestige.
  - ska 3y ago
    You have the causality wrong. Prestige comes to journals by doing a good (or at least, better than peers) job of being a journal, which is providing a necessary function to the academic research process. If you want to improve on that system, you have to improve on those functions, or reduce the reliance on them by providing something better. Put it another way, if you can design a system with a better ROC curve for classifying research, with a better TP rate for good papers, and have it cost less in real terms that current academic papers, then you are on to something. If all you've got is "papers should be free" or "it's too hard to access publishing from the outside" what you have are complaints, not solutions.
    - staunton 3y ago
      Like I said, it's not clear to me what exactly established journals have been doing "better" historically than a preprint server could. You say they are better at "being a journal" -- OK. They are established, well connected (to science communities, industry, journalism, funding agencies, etc.) and have been maintaining a reputation for a long time, usually much longer than preprint servers exist. That's basically prestige, which isn't nothing (I didn't claim prestige is nothing). However, this doesn't demonstrate journals do anything relevant to the advancement of science fundamentally better right now. What I "have" is that 1. It's not obvious that a journal is fundamentally better at organizing unpaid voluntary reviewers compared to a preprint server. 2. Scientific publishing has insanely high profit margins. How come? My theory is that they are selling prestige first and foremost, i.e., a luxury good, (to scientists, universities and funding agencies simultaneously) and purchasing decisions there are made by people who are spending public money, not their own. Both of these points (luxury good, public spending) seem like strong contributors to high margins. The public is paying for the research and for access to articles, while journals nowadays on first glance seem to only provide a little bit of web hosting, a little bit of reviewer coordination and a little bit of manuscript editing. 3. It's not obvious that the submission and peer review systems we have now (in journals) is worth the time and effort. The role of peer review is misrepresented in journalism and the expectations are not met. If one could separate publication ("preprint") on one side, and, on the other side, review and "being featured by important outlets or institutions", authors could save a lot of time time (that could be used for more research). Others would have access to interesting results earlier and be able to build on top of them. Next, in a separate process some institution could select important works, scrutinize and review them, perhaps paying experts to do so, and perhaps replicate where appropriate. The issue with this is that academics need the prestige provided by journals for career advancement, universities need the prestige to justify their spending to funding agencies and politicians, and funding agencies likewise need the prestige to justify their spending to politicians. The "replication crisis" and the like indicate that this prestige is overvalued. The hope is, economically speaking, that the market for "academic prestige" can either be disrupted, or the price the public has to pay can be lowered "through competition". It's interesting what that might look like. Preprint servers, open data and more direct science communication seem like steps in the right direction.

geysersam 3y ago

That's just not true. Most publicly fundes research is hidden behind paywalls.

ska 3y ago
No it's exactly true. You can write up anything you want and put it on a site. The post I was replying to was suggesting an open access system (both read and write) for exchanging ideas. This exists. What it doesn't do is effectively replace the non-open system for access to academic journals. I have a lot of sympathy for open (read) access to research, particularly publicly funded. It just isn't sensible to wave a wand and say "all papers are free to read now" without some plan for the other parts of the system and the ecosystem (academic research) that relies on it.
- geysersam 3y ago
  Why do you think that peer review needs the journals to function?
  - ska 3y ago
    I didn't say that. It needs something. Handwaving about an emergent community isn't useful - moving from todays system to something else needs something concrete.