Live data from Hacker News

Academics sharing paywalled papers with a codeword on Twitter

bbc.co.uk

171–180 of 212 posts

Re: Academics sharing paywalled papers with a codeword on Twitter

#171
post #163

This is 2015. The idea that we need to make sure a company is steeped in ill-gotten profit so that information can be disseminated is absolutely laughable. The internet has brought a new method of information dissemination, a free method. not only are for-profit scientific journals outdated relics by now, but they're clearly aware of that fact and grasping for straws to stay relevant.

Grasping at straws is a strange way to say rolling in money. The Journals are relics for sure, but with the internet their costs went down, and they make a ton of money financed by tax-funded research.

Re: Academics sharing paywalled papers with a codeword on Twitter

#172
post #100
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last week linguists issued Elsevier an ultimatum, demanding fair open access for the journal Lingua [0,1]: > We asked for the following: 1) The journal is transferred to full Open Access status, 2) Article Processing Charges (APCs) cost 400 euros, 3) The copyright of articles remains with the authors, 4) The journal henceforth operates under a cc-by licence, 5) Ownership of the journal is transferred to the collectiv…

Now it looks like Elsevier is not going to cooperate Are we really surprised? How would you feel if some of your customers demanded you turn your business over to them for zero compensation? I wish the linguists all the luck in the world starting their new, open-access journal.

"Customers"? Or maybe unpaid employees, since it's typically the editorial board issuing the ultimatum? Or are they suppliers, except that they're suppliers who pay to provide Elsevier products?

Re: Academics sharing paywalled papers with a codeword on Twitter

#173
post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Scientists still love giving up their rights to Elsevier though. They're as much to blame as the publisher. Scientists don't love giving up their rights to Elsevier. Elsevier owns many high IF journals in a number of fields, and publishing in high IF journals is part of how you "prove your worth" and get grants. Scientists give up their rights to Elsevier because that's how the "scientific economy" of their field o…

Professors are "expected" to be published in these journals in large Universities. They basically will never advance their career without be published in a "major journal."

Early career academics are a slave to the system for career advancement; late career (successful) academics are too complacent to want to change. The only way the parent's idea will take root is if established academicians vote with their own writing, and go on a mission to convince others in their sphere of influence.

As you say, to do this as a young researcher is career suicide.

Re: Academics sharing paywalled papers with a codeword on Twitter

#174

I'd love to see "popcorn time for scientific publications". Hint, hint.

An interesting thought! It would take some resources to host the thousands of journals out there, but fundamentally the problem is similar to hosting movies, TV shows or music.

Re: Academics sharing paywalled papers with a codeword on Twitter

#175
For what it's worth, this has been going on for at least 10 years in my experience. It's existence isn't so much news to me -- but it's news that it's still around.

In the life sciences, the NIH has personally dealt with several publishers on this issue. The result is that many large journals will ultimately open up their archives on PubMedCentral[0], one year after publication. For most researchers staying current, this is nearly useless.

[0] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/

Re: Academics sharing paywalled papers with a codeword on Twitter

#176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scientists still love giving up their rights to Elsevier though. They're as much to blame as the publisher. Maybe something would start to happen if scientists preferentially avoided citing non-openly published papers. They won't though, because their work is too competitive, but it might help to put a damper on it.

Things would change very fast if consideration for funding and tenure was based strictly on openly published papers. My understanding of current policies is that they basically force scientists in several different areas to produce content for free for Elsevier if they want to have a career at all.

The FASTR act in the Senate would essentially implement the funding side of this.

Changing tenure policies is also an important component in getting a culture shift towards open research.

http://www.sparc.arl.org/advocacy/national/fastr/faq

Re: Academics sharing paywalled papers with a codeword on Twitter

#177
post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scientists still love giving up their rights to Elsevier though. They're as much to blame as the publisher. Maybe something would start to happen if scientists preferentially avoided citing non-openly published papers. They won't though, because their work is too competitive, but it might help to put a damper on it.

I'm not sure about the workflow, but Elsevier ask for scientist to peer review the paper no? Couldn't the scientist refuse to peer review non-openly published papers?

You could, but typically the editor of the journal asking for reviews is a leading academic in the field of the journal.

Refusing to review non-open work sounds like a good way to burn political capital for those early in their careers.

Re: Academics sharing paywalled papers with a codeword on Twitter

#178
post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> These journals are providing a service. The journals provide a service, but Elsevier is a rent-seeking entity, it buys up/takes over publications and hikes up prices. http://imechanica.org/node/1531#comment-3251 estimates that the International Journal of Solids and Structures cost about $0.5m/year to run and had revenues of about $3.5m, or a net profit of $3m going to Elsevier for owning the journal and little els…

If they weren't making a lot of profit, would you be OK with the situation? I'm just trying to understand why people think the situation is unfair. High prestige journals offer value to both authors and readers. Apparently both authors and readers feel it's worth the money. And again, there is nothing stopping anyone else from starting their own journal. If they fail, then authors and readers must find some value in…

"High prestige journals offer value to both authors and readers."

This is a very odd situation that I suspect isn't really amenable to normal economic analysis, at least outside of very simplistic models.

The value that journals offer is, over the medium term, due to the editorial staff and the authors that submit articles. Remove those two, and the journal will cease to be "high prestige" and will likely fold. In the short term, however, the value is in the journal's name: you could replace the editors of Lancet with a crop of corn husks and it would still be "high prestige" for quite a while---at least until the third or fourth major screw-up. (Losing the authors is harder, but hold that thought for another paragraph.)

On the other hand, over the long term, the value lies entirely in the readers. No major academic is going to waste their professional capital on a journal that isn't read by their colleagues, and ultimately, an academic's articles need to be read, not just published, for them to advance more than locally.

In the same way, new journals have issues: In the short term, it's hard to get over the name recognition hump; in the medium term, they have to have consistently good editors and authors to attract more than momentary attention. But once they have attracted a readership, they have an inertia that makes other factors less important.

A couple of examples:

* Anyone heard from Software: Practice and Experience lately? It was one of my favorite journals, and was being edited by Douglas Comer the last time I interacted with it. But I haven't seen an issue in more than a decade, mostly because it is (was?) hideously expensive, and haven't seen any references to it, either.

* How about PLOS? Seems to be high prestige now, judging by the number of references I hear on the Science and Nature podcasts.

My personal suspicion is that a better analogy for Elsevier and company is the mining business: extracting as much wealth as possible from academic journals, as cheaply as possible, before the ore runs out and the town dries up and blows away.

Re: Academics sharing paywalled papers with a codeword on Twitter

#179
post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> These journals are providing a service. The journals provide a service, but Elsevier is a rent-seeking entity, it buys up/takes over publications and hikes up prices. http://imechanica.org/node/1531#comment-3251 estimates that the International Journal of Solids and Structures cost about $0.5m/year to run and had revenues of about $3.5m, or a net profit of $3m going to Elsevier for owning the journal and little els…

If they weren't making a lot of profit, would you be OK with the situation? I'm just trying to understand why people think the situation is unfair. High prestige journals offer value to both authors and readers. Apparently both authors and readers feel it's worth the money. And again, there is nothing stopping anyone else from starting their own journal. If they fail, then authors and readers must find some value in…

If they weren't making a profit, they wouldn't act the same way; for example, if they weren't making a profit, they wouldn't have any incentive to publish vanity journals.

> And again, there is nothing stopping anyone else from starting their own journal. If they fail, then authors and readers must find some value in the current situation.

Publishing in a journal with a low impact factor isn't nearly as worthwhile as publishing in one with a higher impact factor, which implies a strong lock-in effect which works on Elsevier's favor. Even if Elsevier weren't around, a new journal would have a hard time getting off the ground.

Re: Academics sharing paywalled papers with a codeword on Twitter

#180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you publish get generally get sent a stack of hard copies for distribution to whoever you feel like sending to (usually far more than you have people to send to). Sending the reprints is legal. Sending the pdf is either illegal or legal or more likely a huge grey area which as an author you can't be bothered to work out. Postage is free in most academic departments and not much harder than sending an email. Ther…

Several professors I know publish all their papers on their university/government lab hosted website and have never received any take down notices. When you use Google scholar to search for one of their papers there is a link directly to the pdf hosted by them. Many professors feel that the papers are theirs to redistribute as they wish even if copyright says otherwise. But I do understand why some authors might feel…

It depends on the publisher copyright agreement. With many closed journals, the researcher is free to post a preprint on a personal site or to something like arXiv, but not to post the final version with the journal's "value-added" layout and such.
Post reply on HN