Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Why aren't scientific journals free on the web?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–58 of 58 posts

Re: Ask HN: Why aren't scientific journals free on the web?

#51

Post by ataggart »

forkandwait wrote: post #23

In physics and math, a lot of the the intellectual/ academic "action" (a combination of the sharing of results + acclamation by peers (for tenure and promotion)) has moved to preprint servers, specifically http://arxiv.org . Instead of the closed peer review process, what happens is that your scientific peers either start citing you publically or they rip you to shreds publically -- just as good for judging a result…

> ... acedemia promotes people and the govt gives grants based on a formula: sum(journal_prestige .* number_articles). Take away the current system and there is no way to evaluate anybody.

Neal Stephenson made a similar argument with respect to the arts in his answer to the second question in this interview with slashdot:

http://interviews.slashdot.org/interviews/04/10/20/1518217.s...

Yes, it's a long answer; it is Stephenson after all.

Re: Ask HN: Why aren't scientific journals free on the web?

#52

Post by mhluongo »

forkandwait wrote: post #39
mhluongo wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that arxiv-style publishing cannot replace peer-reviewed work in academia. Peer review isn't just something the big publishers are pushing- it's an integral part of academia. Without reputation, a journal doesn't get read- and reputation in academia necessitates peer review. OTOH, layout is pretty replaceable. Publishers guard their layout guides pretty seriously (lol!), but I'm not sure typesetting se…

I disagree (respectfully). I actually think traditional peer review (2-4 anonymous editors, generally old-boys in their field) is really, really broken. Arxiv and the like functions just fine without it because you get peer reviewed in the open by everyone; if you matter, people subscribe to your papers and try to poke holes in them or start citing them. Also, if you have a new theory that challenges the old guard it…

I heard a story the other day about a paper trying to make it into CHI, a big conference in human-computer interaction. In CS and its subfields, conferences like CHI tend to be more important than journals (or so I've heard). Anyway, the paper was rejected by reviewers, and the rebuttal wasn't enough to make it into the conference.

The paper was stellar, and the author knew it, so he persisted, reasoning that the paper was just too far-reaching for his reviewers. He applied to a portion of the conference called alt.chi, where highly externally reviewed papers can be accepted into the conference, despite being turned down by the review proper. He was able to garner 38 positive named reviews - a shoo-in - and was entered into the conference.

On one hand, this is a great story about how the academic community can build processes that correct for conservative or short-sighted peer review. OTO, though, it's interesting to note that if he hadn't had 38 positive named reviews (or some n less than 38, but considered very strong), he wouldn't have been accepted. This is because, historically, named review is messed up- no one would negatively review his paper and attach his or her name. I can't talk too much about the details of arXiv, but I do know that in a named review system, it's easy to both a) discourage negative commentary, and b) discourage younger or less experienced reviewers, who are especially afraid of hurting their reputation against more experienced colleagues.

Don't get me wrong- I do think that more open systems can replace the current peer review- but I also believe that double-blind reviews and sometimes the intervention of an editor are important for a coercion-free process. They also make it easier to cut the information clutter- instead of following individual researchers, I can follow a few peer-reviewed outlets I trust.

EDIT: I guess a big part of my point is that while it doesn't need to be traditional peer review, some of the aspects of traditional peer review process need to be maintained in the community.

Re: Ask HN: Why aren't scientific journals free on the web?

#53

Post by _delirium »

mbreese wrote: post #50
forkandwait wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's look at these costs a little bit, and whether they still apply with the internet -- Printing: No need to have printed journals at all ever again. If a library wants an archive they can do it on their local hp and bind it. Free. Reviewing: Done by volunteers. Free. Editing: Done in the reviewing process, plus journals don't "work with" authors helping them to craft their paragraphs. There is an editor who might…

> Sorry, time marches on. Quality always costs. I think that open access journals are net cheaper than their print counterparts, but it will always cost money to produce a good journal. Look at the PLoS group. They are the closest we have to a top-tier online-only journal and they produce a high quality journal with an excellent impact score. However, it still costs $2900 to get an article published (if it's accepted…

You are also severely over estimating the ability of most academics to produce a good, publication ready, PDF. If you're publishing in a journal, there is a set look and feel that must be applied. No matter how good the work is, someone still has to apply the right layouts.

In computer science these days, there are very few journals that do any of this for you. The standard, even for expensive, non-open-access Springer journals, is to require the authors to submit camera-ready PDFs. Maybe that isn't ideal, but the closed-access journals mostly aren't any more full-service than the open-access journals on that front, so it's not clear what the money is buying us as authors. All the publishers provide are Word and LaTeX templates, some formatting instructions, and loud complaints if you get anything wrong.

The only major journals in my area I can think of that do significant in-house professional layout are the IEEE's "magazine-style" journals targeted at a mixed academic/professional audience (they go for a full-color, glossy-magazine look). The IEEE journals that don't fall into that category require authors to submit camera-ready PDFs, though.

Re: Ask HN: Why aren't scientific journals free on the web?

#54

Post by aufreak3 »

mhluongo wrote: post #52
forkandwait wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree (respectfully). I actually think traditional peer review (2-4 anonymous editors, generally old-boys in their field) is really, really broken. Arxiv and the like functions just fine without it because you get peer reviewed in the open by everyone; if you matter, people subscribe to your papers and try to poke holes in them or start citing them. Also, if you have a new theory that challenges the old guard it…

I heard a story the other day about a paper trying to make it into CHI, a big conference in human-computer interaction. In CS and its subfields, conferences like CHI tend to be more important than journals (or so I've heard). Anyway, the paper was rejected by reviewers, and the rebuttal wasn't enough to make it into the conference. The paper was stellar, and the author knew it, so he persisted, reasoning that the pap…

You make an important point, but public named negative reviews are common in the field of writing fiction. Then apparently, the social setup that writers live in is different from the academic setup where public negative reviews may have "political" consequences for your career.

Any comments on that? Is there something that the academic world can borrow from the writers' world to remove the discouraging influences you mention? I haven't thought through this since I don't know much about a writer's world.

Re: Ask HN: Why aren't scientific journals free on the web?

#55

Post by mbreese »

_delirium wrote: post #53
mbreese wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sorry, time marches on. Quality always costs. I think that open access journals are net cheaper than their print counterparts, but it will always cost money to produce a good journal. Look at the PLoS group. They are the closest we have to a top-tier online-only journal and they produce a high quality journal with an excellent impact score. However, it still costs $2900 to get an article published (if it's accepted…

You are also severely over estimating the ability of most academics to produce a good, publication ready, PDF. If you're publishing in a journal, there is a set look and feel that must be applied. No matter how good the work is, someone still has to apply the right layouts. In computer science these days, there are very few journals that do any of this for you. The standard, even for expensive, non-open-access Spring…

See, I'm coming from the biology side, where layouts can be far more complicated. You also have more, shall we say, technical people submitting to CompSci journals. The only camera-ready submission that I've dealt with was for a ACM conference.

Re: Ask HN: Why aren't scientific journals free on the web?

#56

Post by tomjen3 »

mhluongo wrote: post #15
tomjen3 wrote: post #13

Because they can. Peer-review publications are the way people measure the worthiness of academics, so their producers job depend on getting published in prestigious scientific journals, so they put up with it. The only way this is ever going to chance is if they make the law such that you have to publish in a free to access journal, but since the current mafia has all the money, who do you think has the most lobbyist…

If an open-access journal can become reputable enough, the niche in a field interested in the journal will publish there- period. It doesn't require laws to be passed.

The worthiness of journals, for the purpose of determining how much grant money a publication should count for at least, will be determined by official regulation soon enough if Danish politicians gets their will through.

And woe to any upstart then.

Re: Ask HN: Why aren't scientific journals free on the web?

#58

Post by jonnydover »

forkandwait wrote: post #25
mbreese wrote: post #11

What you're looking for are called "Open Access" journals. There are a few lists on the web, such as http://www.doaj.org/ . There has been a big push recently for Open Access to scientific data, especially NIH funded studies. I don't know how this is for NSF funded work though. PLoS is the poster child of this movement, but others have been around for longer, such as the BioMed Central (BMC) family of journals. There…

Let's look at these costs a little bit, and whether they still apply with the internet -- Printing: No need to have printed journals at all ever again. If a library wants an archive they can do it on their local hp and bind it. Free. Reviewing: Done by volunteers. Free. Editing: Done in the reviewing process, plus journals don't "work with" authors helping them to craft their paragraphs. There is an editor who might…

I'm so biased that it's almost ludicrous to read my comment, but I'm an editor at an international medical journal, I get paid for it, and I work hard to make it a great publication. Among my responsibilities are that I take care of manuscript workflow and make international (non-english) submissions readable.

I am a dedicated open access fanatic, which is why I'm here (pointed by an oa source), but I think that people like me, in the medicine field, can be easily supported by advertising and medical societies.

I think your analysis is largely right apart from the question of editing, especially considering that clarity is absolutely among the most important values in scientific communication.

Post reply on HN