151–160 of 327 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I also think code used to produce results should be published as well.
I agree with this in theory... but do you really want my garbage, ad hoc, messy code that I used to pipe output from one program to another?
Well, if you're embarrassed by your terrible handwriting, maybe it's a time to put some effort to improve it.
Full disclosure: I'm a founder of a company called Scholastica that provides software that helps journals peer-review and publish open-access content online. One of our journal clients, Discrete Analysis, is linked to in the NYT article. It is incredibly obvious that journal content shouldn't cost as much as it does. - Scholars write the content for free - Scholars do the peer-review for free - All the legacy publish…
Full disclosure: I'm a founder of a company called Scholastica that provides software that helps journals peer-review and publish open-access content online. One of our journal clients, Discrete Analysis, is linked to in the NYT article. It is incredibly obvious that journal content shouldn't cost as much as it does. - Scholars write the content for free - Scholars do the peer-review for free - All the legacy publish…
Why are you under the impression scholars write the papers for free? That is what researchers are employed at universities to do ... Yes, it is not like publishing a book but these papers are not really like books anyway.
I feel especially strongly that papers that result from taxpayer-funded research should be free.
I also think code used to produce results should be published as well.
Really, a lot of the comments to this and the downvotes seem to betray a lack of understanding of what cs research is like, which is understandable I guess. CS research is not like creating physics experiments, there are methods, techniques, and algorithms. When there is an experimental result, CS researchers do not treat those as sacrosanct and do have an informed skepticism but we are generally able to determine and discern the bulk is what is important from the content of the paper itself, in most cases.
Yeah, if you look at the experimental results section from papers in SOSP, you could come up with all kinds of complaints probably all day long but there is more to it and the community than is being taken for granted here.
Full disclosure: I'm a founder of a company called Scholastica that provides software that helps journals peer-review and publish open-access content online. One of our journal clients, Discrete Analysis, is linked to in the NYT article. It is incredibly obvious that journal content shouldn't cost as much as it does. - Scholars write the content for free - Scholars do the peer-review for free - All the legacy publish…
Who can blame them in a capitalist society. Anyway, I'm glad to see people respond via places like Arxiv. Sci-Hub is more like civil disobedience. Great that it happened for all the learners out there, but it's going to make some people very angry because they have bet their careers or invested based on the idea that the government protects and enforces copyright agreements.
We want people to invest in research. Academia has been very lucky in this regard as higher level institutions have continually grown in America. Should people begin to feel that investing in research has no return value, there might not be so many tenureships around in the future. I don't think this is happening I'm just conjecturing and suggesting that while a correction is definitely needed, I'm not sure leaping to the "all free" model is going to work for every scientific community. I could be 100% wrong though. I like the direction in which we are headed. It's more trusting, and I think that means growth for a society.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree with this in theory... but do you really want my garbage, ad hoc, messy code that I used to pipe output from one program to another?
This is like saying "I don't want to file a tax because my handwriting is bad". Well, if you're embarrassed by your terrible handwriting, maybe it's a time to put some effort to improve it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why are you under the impression scholars write the papers for free? That is what researchers are employed at universities to do ... Yes, it is not like publishing a book but these papers are not really like books anyway.
They're not getting paid by the publisher.
I feel especially strongly that papers that result from taxpayer-funded research should be free.
I also think code used to produce results should be published as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're not getting paid by the publisher.
No we don't get paid by the publisher but we are paid to write papers. I can be downvoted for being correct but it doesn't change anything. Researchers are paid by research institution to do research for which product are papers.
Full disclosure: I'm a founder of a company called Scholastica that provides software that helps journals peer-review and publish open-access content online. One of our journal clients, Discrete Analysis, is linked to in the NYT article. It is incredibly obvious that journal content shouldn't cost as much as it does. - Scholars write the content for free - Scholars do the peer-review for free - All the legacy publish…
For example, say you submit a paper to Nature. Odds are it will be rejected, because Nature has a high impact factor. Say your paper is both accepted and passes the review process. Now you have to pay Nature to publish your paper. Depending on the options you ask for (e.g. making it free to download costs extra) you can wind up paying thousands.
No university is going to say to one of their researchers, "Hey, could you maybe not get accepted by Nature quite so much? It's expensive!". Nature knows this.
Also, the format of submission varies by field. While word files may be standard in some fields, in others latex is expected. Obviously, typesetting a latex document is pretty gosh-darned easy for a script to do.