3 ms·
1 - Publicly available archival-quality publishing for all science done in the US would cost at least millions a year to administer. The idea is nice, but is ju
by nmrm2 11y ago
1 - Publicly available archival-quality publishing for all science done in the US would cost at least millions a year to administer. The idea is nice, but is just an idea without the funding to make it happen.
2 - Peer review problems could probably be addressed on a per-venue basis. Eg in many areas of CS the max turnaround time is a few months. And there's nothing stopping you from publishing peer reviewer's comments. But I am not convinced that enforcing this universally is a good idea, for either the author or the reviewer.
- gnaritas 11y ago> Publicly available archival-quality publishing for all science done in the US would cost at least millions a year to administer. The idea is nice, but is just an idea without the funding to make it happen. This is what government is for and a million a year is a rounding error to the government.
- nmrm2 11y agoAgreed. But I think this is important to point out. It's not as if scientists are lazy or greedy -- they spend the most time and get no benefit out of publications in journals in the status quo. There just aren't compelling alternatives to the traditional model in many disciplines, and most of the time it's due to want of desire rather than want of money.
- nmrm2 11y agoSomeone down voted this? Archival-grade hosting is pretty expensive -- it means the cost of publishing a paper is the cost of serving that paper (and keeping backups, maintaining the software infrastructure, etc) for... ever. Typically both for- and non-profits place this cost in the three-to-four figures range. It's not as simple as "slap it up on arxiv" -- arxiv would break in a second if every scientist started using it as the de facto platform for every paper.