5 ms·

> which happens to add value to nobody but their own pockets. While publishers as they exist now are not necessary for this, the publishing process does typica

> which happens to add value to nobody but their own pockets. While publishers as they exist now are not necessary for this, the publishing process does typically incorporate peer review which has significant value. I agree that things need to change, but I don't think it's true that zero value is added by publishers.

thomasahle 2y ago
In many fields, particularly those that rely on conferences over journals, peer review is organized by others, not the publisher. So here they are truly doing nothing but hosting the papers behind their pay wall.
fanf2 2y ago
Peer review is done for free by academics. The publisher does not contribute to peer review.
- michaelmior 2y ago
  The publisher does often assist with coordinating the peer review process which is a nontrivial task. I'm not saying this in itself necessitates everything else surrounding the publishing ecosystem, but I don't think it's accurate to say the publisher does not contribute.
  - jampekka 2y ago
    In my editor experience the assistance is minimal at best. Editors (almost all upaid) assess suitability of manuscripts, find the reviewers and handle all communication.
jampekka 2y ago
Peer review and editing is done free by academics. Publishers "facilitate" this by having horrible unusable sofware platforms from the 90's for this. These are actually worse than nothing, as review would be a lot easier to organize and conduct via e-mail. Publishers don't add value, they subtract it. People probably have hard time undersanding this because the system is so absurd and so obvious racket they don't think such can exist.
- shaky-carrousel 2y ago
  Peer reviewing could be made easier by public key cryptography. You could establish a web of trust between reviewers.
  - jampekka 2y ago
    I see no need for that. There are no problems with verifiying identities of reviewers.
    - shaky-carrousel 2y ago
      It could enable to have a decentralised web of trust of reviewers. In the same vein it is used to verify identities, you can use it to assess the reliability of a reviewer. A reviewer could sign another reviewer's key with the confidence it has about their reviewing.
      - jampekka 2y ago
        This is done via academic credentials, mostly by publishing in the same field. I don't think there are any major technical challenges in publishing or peer review. It's not complicated at all. The problems are sociological.
        shaky-carrousel 2y ago
        Well, you depend on a trustable publisher. With a web of trust you won't need that. People could publish anywhere.
- michaelmior 2y ago
  I am an academic who spends a nontrivial amount of time reviewing papers. My experience has been that the platforms used for submitting reviews are perfectly fine. Often outdated, sure, but I've never really found this to be a significant barrier. I would personally find it more challenging to manage reviews via email.
sonzohan 2y ago
> does typically incorporate peer review which has significant value. Significant value which is given gratis by said peers, which journals use to boost their reputability and, by association, their profits. Publishers are profiting off of free labor from subject matter experts. Even more disappointing is this free labor is viewed as a right of passage. Don't forget that the author spent hundreds to thousands of dollars to access these unpaid peers. Publishers are increasingly well-known as scammy. It's why MIT ended their Elsevier contract, and why many other R1s are following suit. Also don't get me started on the dubious quality of peer review in todays "Publish or Perish" climate.
- jampekka 2y ago
  > It's why MIT ended their Elsevier contract, and why many other R1s are following suit. I think focusing on Elsevier is/was a mistake. All the publishers are running the exact same racket. Even non-profits like IEEE. It's a disgrace.
  - relaxing 2y ago
    Elsevier are the biggest and most aggressive in driving up prices. But you’re right the others aren’t far behind.
- michaelmior 2y ago
  I agree that the value is primarily given by the peers. However, someone needs to coordinate the process. That said, while I can understand viewing it as free labor, it is often (indirectly) part of the job description of faculty members.

thomasahle 2y ago

In many fields, particularly those that rely on conferences over journals, peer review is organized by others, not the publisher. So here they are truly doing nothing but hosting the papers behind their pay wall.

fanf2 2y ago

Peer review is done for free by academics. The publisher does not contribute to peer review.

michaelmior 2y ago
The publisher does often assist with coordinating the peer review process which is a nontrivial task. I'm not saying this in itself necessitates everything else surrounding the publishing ecosystem, but I don't think it's accurate to say the publisher does not contribute.
- jampekka 2y ago
  In my editor experience the assistance is minimal at best. Editors (almost all upaid) assess suitability of manuscripts, find the reviewers and handle all communication.

jampekka 2y ago

Peer review and editing is done free by academics. Publishers "facilitate" this by having horrible unusable sofware platforms from the 90's for this. These are actually worse than nothing, as review would be a lot easier to organize and conduct via e-mail. Publishers don't add value, they subtract it. People probably have hard time undersanding this because the system is so absurd and so obvious racket they don't think such can exist.

shaky-carrousel 2y ago
Peer reviewing could be made easier by public key cryptography. You could establish a web of trust between reviewers.
- jampekka 2y ago
  I see no need for that. There are no problems with verifiying identities of reviewers.
  - shaky-carrousel 2y ago
    It could enable to have a decentralised web of trust of reviewers. In the same vein it is used to verify identities, you can use it to assess the reliability of a reviewer. A reviewer could sign another reviewer's key with the confidence it has about their reviewing.
    - jampekka 2y ago
      This is done via academic credentials, mostly by publishing in the same field. I don't think there are any major technical challenges in publishing or peer review. It's not complicated at all. The problems are sociological.
      - shaky-carrousel 2y ago
        Well, you depend on a trustable publisher. With a web of trust you won't need that. People could publish anywhere.
michaelmior 2y ago
I am an academic who spends a nontrivial amount of time reviewing papers. My experience has been that the platforms used for submitting reviews are perfectly fine. Often outdated, sure, but I've never really found this to be a significant barrier. I would personally find it more challenging to manage reviews via email.

sonzohan 2y ago

> does typically incorporate peer review which has significant value. Significant value which is given gratis by said peers, which journals use to boost their reputability and, by association, their profits. Publishers are profiting off of free labor from subject matter experts. Even more disappointing is this free labor is viewed as a right of passage. Don't forget that the author spent hundreds to thousands of dollars to access these unpaid peers. Publishers are increasingly well-known as scammy. It's why MIT ended their Elsevier contract, and why many other R1s are following suit. Also don't get me started on the dubious quality of peer review in todays "Publish or Perish" climate.

jampekka 2y ago
> It's why MIT ended their Elsevier contract, and why many other R1s are following suit. I think focusing on Elsevier is/was a mistake. All the publishers are running the exact same racket. Even non-profits like IEEE. It's a disgrace.
- relaxing 2y ago
  Elsevier are the biggest and most aggressive in driving up prices. But you’re right the others aren’t far behind.
michaelmior 2y ago
I agree that the value is primarily given by the peers. However, someone needs to coordinate the process. That said, while I can understand viewing it as free labor, it is often (indirectly) part of the job description of faculty members.