4 ms·
I think MSP is a great publisher, but it still functions more or less like a traditional publisher would. I believe their journals are reasonably priced, but th
by anonymouz 14y ago
I think MSP is a great publisher, but it still functions more or less like a traditional publisher would. I believe their journals are reasonably priced, but this initiative seems to present another step in that it is an attempt to completely abolish publishers.
The argument in favor is that they do not add all that much of value, and the community would rather do without the copy-editing that the journals provide and instead have completely open access without any charges.
Of course there are already open access journals, but sometimes you have to pay to publish there, and what may make this initiative different from the ones so far may simply be momentum: Perhaps this time it will indeed start a permanent transformation of the way mathematics is published.
The current push, starting with the Elsevier boycott and "lead" by Gowers, seems to have support from a substantial part of the community.
- stephencanon 14y agoRight. I definitely don't mean to imply that there's not room to improve on the "traditional publishing" model that MSP uses. I only mean to point out that the Nature article is rather over the top in terms of the prospective changes that it attributes to the Episciences Project, and that an enormous amount of good work has already been done in the "reforming math/science publication" space in the past 10 years or so.