3 ms·

Why is this the top-rated comment? I could literally use it as a generic I-know-more-than-the-author comment on any article about a problem (replacing the quote

Why is this the top-rated comment? I could literally use it as a generic I-know-more-than-the-author comment on any article about a problem (replacing the quote and author's name of course). It provides no more information than that the commenter thinks there's something wrong with the quote that's pulled out of the article. A good comment would at least say why you think it's a difficult problem (that the author has supposedly missed). As far as hiring or giving tenure based on merit instead of journal prestige, this is achievable. It's hard because traditionally journal names are extremely important. But it's doable. When I was a grad student, I was personally aware of the process of hiring people in my field. The problem right now is that one person could say, "X is good but candidate Y has two articles in Awesome Journal, so Y seems better." That statement implies Y has good work, but we need to make room for the reply, "Yes, but X has done better work and avoided Awesome J. because it's closed access." It's an attitude shift, which is hard, but doable.

impendia 14y ago
You objected to the upvotes, but do you actually disagree with me? I do not disagree with your claims. In your last paragraph, are you claiming that your suggestion is not only "achievable" and "doable", but simple enough to implement that the challenges don't bear mention in an argument for reforming academic publishing? For elaboration, I endorse and agree with pseut's comment, he said more or less what I would say. I recently served on a hiring committee in my own mathematics department. It is extraordinarily difficult to evaluate the work even of other mathematicians. In areas other than my own, I can distinguish bogus work from good work, but I find it difficult to distinguish good work from excellent work. Although we rely principally on letters of recommendation, and interviews (although we must of course first narrow our search down to a shortlist), we find that quality of journals is a good barometer for quality of work. I would like to see publishing change as much as anyone, and I am a signatory to the Elsevier boycott (see www.thecostofknowledge.com). I believe we stand the best chance of effecting change if we seriously consider the obstacles standing in our way.
- tylerneylon 14y ago
  I agree that it's very difficult to change hiring attitudes to support open access publishing. I disagree that difficulty means it's a mistake to try. Hiring/tenure attitudes can include respect for people who choose to avoid closed-access publishers. This doesn't punish people who continue to publish the old way. If done right, it only helps the careers of those who avoid closed journals. By the way, I somewhat snarkily complained that your comment was snarky. That was hypocritical of me, at least in spirit. Sorry about that. I like non-snarky, straightforward comments. I'm glad you're signed up at the cost of knowledge. My personal role in open access is mainly as the creator of that site.

impendia 14y ago

You objected to the upvotes, but do you actually disagree with me? I do not disagree with your claims. In your last paragraph, are you claiming that your suggestion is not only "achievable" and "doable", but simple enough to implement that the challenges don't bear mention in an argument for reforming academic publishing? For elaboration, I endorse and agree with pseut's comment, he said more or less what I would say. I recently served on a hiring committee in my own mathematics department. It is extraordinarily difficult to evaluate the work even of other mathematicians. In areas other than my own, I can distinguish bogus work from good work, but I find it difficult to distinguish good work from excellent work. Although we rely principally on letters of recommendation, and interviews (although we must of course first narrow our search down to a shortlist), we find that quality of journals is a good barometer for quality of work. I would like to see publishing change as much as anyone, and I am a signatory to the Elsevier boycott (see www.thecostofknowledge.com). I believe we stand the best chance of effecting change if we seriously consider the obstacles standing in our way.

tylerneylon 14y ago
I agree that it's very difficult to change hiring attitudes to support open access publishing. I disagree that difficulty means it's a mistake to try. Hiring/tenure attitudes can include respect for people who choose to avoid closed-access publishers. This doesn't punish people who continue to publish the old way. If done right, it only helps the careers of those who avoid closed journals. By the way, I somewhat snarkily complained that your comment was snarky. That was hypocritical of me, at least in spirit. Sorry about that. I like non-snarky, straightforward comments. I'm glad you're signed up at the cost of knowledge. My personal role in open access is mainly as the creator of that site.