5 ms·

This is a rotten thing to do by Taylor & Francis. Humans are treated as expendable pawns to serve the capital and the machine. We need new publishing models wi

This is a rotten thing to do by Taylor & Francis. Humans are treated as expendable pawns to serve the capital and the machine. We need new publishing models with strict copyright protections that protect against theft. Academics should run their own publishing houses as a cooperative.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
freeone3000 2y ago
The entire purpose of academic publishing is to widely distribute knowledge. The co-op would break doen the absolutely awful publishing fees to be sure, but… I’m not sure what “theft” you feel took place here.
- ladfgym 2y ago
  And the distributors need to be rich mega-corporations who collect a fee for selling you back your own works?
  - nostrebored 2y ago
    They're not selling you back your works, they're selling you back a distillation of them. Hopefully one that's useful for a particular context.
    - johnnyanmac 2y ago
      great, my favorite aspect of society. Paying to get someone or something else's interpretation of raw knowledge that is barred from the public , privy to all their biases and in a black box resistant to peer review. Yeah, this is definitely going to change the world. I'm not sure if it'll be for the better.
- SoftTalker 2y ago
  Who pays for the peer review? Who prevents the publication of nonsense, pseudo-science, cherry-picked findings, etc. Granted you may argue that is done poorly today but it certainly doesn't happen for no costs.
  - hilbertseries 2y ago
    You do realize peer reviewers are also unpaid.
    - SoftTalker 2y ago
      No I didn't realize that. Why does anyone do them, and what real care do they take when they are doing it for free?
      - BeetleB 2y ago
        > Why does anyone do them, It's part of the culture. I write a paper. I want to get it published. Journals need someone to review it. If I refuse to peer review others' papers, then in principle people may refuse to review mine and we both lose. Sure, it'd be nice if publishers passed some of the profits to both authors and reviewers, but that would create other perverse incentives. > and what real care do they take when they are doing it for free? Not much. They sometimes sit on it for months before reviewing it.
        xp84 2y ago
        Pardon my ignorance, I’m very much not an academic, but what the heck do the publishers bring to the table here? Suppose you just published your paper on a free site, and solicited your peer reviewers to annotate a Google Doc or whatever? I can see why journals and their publishers mattered 50 years ago when they were needed to physically publish the information by printing it on paper and distributing it. But I don’t get it now. Why does anyone gift them their papers? To me this sounds like a store where the customers bring in all the merchandise and give it to the store, who then sells it back to other customers. In other words, crazy.
lolinder 2y ago
> We need new publishing models with strict copyright protections that protect against theft. No, we need new publishing models that release the publicly-funded information into the public domain. If tax dollars paid for the research then there should be no copyright on the results of that research at all, owned by the publisher or authors. This wouldn't represent a change for the authors anyway, who already are accustomed to having to sign away copyright (hence this story). The problem in this instance isn't that the papers are being fed into machine learning models, the problem is that the publisher is extracting a check for the privilege.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

freeone3000 2y ago

The entire purpose of academic publishing is to widely distribute knowledge. The co-op would break doen the absolutely awful publishing fees to be sure, but… I’m not sure what “theft” you feel took place here.

ladfgym 2y ago
And the distributors need to be rich mega-corporations who collect a fee for selling you back your own works?
- nostrebored 2y ago
  They're not selling you back your works, they're selling you back a distillation of them. Hopefully one that's useful for a particular context.
  - johnnyanmac 2y ago
    great, my favorite aspect of society. Paying to get someone or something else's interpretation of raw knowledge that is barred from the public , privy to all their biases and in a black box resistant to peer review. Yeah, this is definitely going to change the world. I'm not sure if it'll be for the better.
SoftTalker 2y ago
Who pays for the peer review? Who prevents the publication of nonsense, pseudo-science, cherry-picked findings, etc. Granted you may argue that is done poorly today but it certainly doesn't happen for no costs.
- hilbertseries 2y ago
  You do realize peer reviewers are also unpaid.
  - SoftTalker 2y ago
    No I didn't realize that. Why does anyone do them, and what real care do they take when they are doing it for free?
    - BeetleB 2y ago
      > Why does anyone do them, It's part of the culture. I write a paper. I want to get it published. Journals need someone to review it. If I refuse to peer review others' papers, then in principle people may refuse to review mine and we both lose. Sure, it'd be nice if publishers passed some of the profits to both authors and reviewers, but that would create other perverse incentives. > and what real care do they take when they are doing it for free? Not much. They sometimes sit on it for months before reviewing it.
      - xp84 2y ago
        Pardon my ignorance, I’m very much not an academic, but what the heck do the publishers bring to the table here? Suppose you just published your paper on a free site, and solicited your peer reviewers to annotate a Google Doc or whatever? I can see why journals and their publishers mattered 50 years ago when they were needed to physically publish the information by printing it on paper and distributing it. But I don’t get it now. Why does anyone gift them their papers? To me this sounds like a store where the customers bring in all the merchandise and give it to the store, who then sells it back to other customers. In other words, crazy.

lolinder 2y ago

> We need new publishing models with strict copyright protections that protect against theft. No, we need new publishing models that release the publicly-funded information into the public domain. If tax dollars paid for the research then there should be no copyright on the results of that research at all, owned by the publisher or authors. This wouldn't represent a change for the authors anyway, who already are accustomed to having to sign away copyright (hence this story). The problem in this instance isn't that the papers are being fed into machine learning models, the problem is that the publisher is extracting a check for the privilege.