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

Should All Research Papers Be Free?

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 327 posts

Re: Should All Research Papers Be Free?

#271

Post by BlackFly »

winter_blue wrote: post #245
robertwalsh0 wrote: post #147

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…

> Can you believe it? Paywalling. PDFs. For billions. Wow, I'm amazed that a scientists of all people would tolerate such a scam. Why don't they come together, and en masse leave these pay-walled journals, and switch to free open ones? In politics, you hear about how uneducated voters are tricked by politicians, but this is far more worse. Here you've got some of the most intelligent and creative people on the planet…

Publish or Perish is a highly accurate description of the career. Improving the publishing experience is not the same as publishing, so while you and a couple of your colleagues band together to improve the process, another colleague continues to publish and now looks better than you on paper.

Re: Should All Research Papers Be Free?

#272

Post by matwood »

ikeboy wrote: post #256
matwood wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Margins for Elsevier are closer to 40%, but I don't care about margins. What I care about is that we the tax payer have already paid for the research. Research often happens with government grants, done by researchers working at public universities. Editing and peer review is done for free by other researchers (who are also usually paid by grants and public universities). Elsevier does nothing but extract rent and pa…

You've paid for the research, but not for the publishing cost. If you don't care about the cost, then the decisions you support will obviously be skewed. Claiming that they're just extracting rent ignores the cost, which even at a 40% margin is still 60% of what they charge. Do you have any information on their legal costs that would reduce the cost above? Do you think everyone complaining about prices would be happy…

But the author also pays for the publishing costs. Submitting a paper already costs 1-2k to have it in the journal. PLoS has shown that the 1-2k range is the publishing cost. For even more information that you'll likely not read see here:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jan/16/academic-pub...

It's hardly surprising that publishers would fight dirty to hang on to a business model where scientists do research that is largely publicly funded, and write manuscripts and prepare figures at no cost to the journal; other scientists perform peer-review for free; and other scientists handle the editorial tasks for free or for token stipends. The result of all this free and far-below-minimum-wage professional work is journal articles in which the publisher, which has done almost nothing, owns the copyright and is able to sell copies back to libraries at monopolistic costs, and to individuals at $30 or more per view.

Re: Should All Research Papers Be Free?

#273

Post by matwood »

emodendroket wrote: post #269
matwood wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's a big name because the best research is published there. The fact they charge the author to be in the journal immediately brings into question if it is truly the best research.

I mean, maybe there is better stuff somewhere. Nonetheless, its position as an selective and influential journal with excellent research is pretty secure, which is precisely why they can charge. I still don't see it as quite analogous to an expensive handbag.

You see my point though. Charging to be in the journal means that there may be amazing research that simply refused to pay. Charging to be published in the journal is at odds with it always containing the best research.

Re: Should All Research Papers Be Free?

#274

Post by ikeboy »

matwood wrote: post #272
ikeboy wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've paid for the research, but not for the publishing cost. If you don't care about the cost, then the decisions you support will obviously be skewed. Claiming that they're just extracting rent ignores the cost, which even at a 40% margin is still 60% of what they charge. Do you have any information on their legal costs that would reduce the cost above? Do you think everyone complaining about prices would be happy…

But the author also pays for the publishing costs. Submitting a paper already costs 1-2k to have it in the journal. PLoS has shown that the 1-2k range is the publishing cost. For even more information that you'll likely not read see here: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jan/16/academic-pub... It's hardly surprising that publishers would fight dirty to hang on to a business model where scientists do research…

https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/18625/do-spring... suggests otherwise. Where do you see closed journals charging 1-2k to submit papers?

Re: Should All Research Papers Be Free?

#275

Post by ikeboy »

matwood wrote: post #272
ikeboy wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've paid for the research, but not for the publishing cost. If you don't care about the cost, then the decisions you support will obviously be skewed. Claiming that they're just extracting rent ignores the cost, which even at a 40% margin is still 60% of what they charge. Do you have any information on their legal costs that would reduce the cost above? Do you think everyone complaining about prices would be happy…

But the author also pays for the publishing costs. Submitting a paper already costs 1-2k to have it in the journal. PLoS has shown that the 1-2k range is the publishing cost. For even more information that you'll likely not read see here: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jan/16/academic-pub... It's hardly surprising that publishers would fight dirty to hang on to a business model where scientists do research…

http://www.researchinfonet.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/We... also doesn't find such fees, saying only one Elsevier journal charged page fees.

Re: Should All Research Papers Be Free?

#276

Post by drjesusphd »

return0 wrote: post #82
ycmbntrthrwaway wrote: post #40

The main problems with tax-funded research and grants is that money is given in return for citations in journals with high "impact factor". As a result, publishers of those journals are indirectly supported by the state. Instead, government or funding organizations should review the results of the work for themselves, but they are unable to do it, because they usually don't understand a thing about research subject.

That's the problem, organizations don't want do do the work so they outsource it. But the journal market is not free, it's dominated by incumbents who earned the position centuries ago. As the experience with open access journals shows so far, it's near impossible to get scientists to volunteer their free labor to a new journal. Regulatory action (like requiring open access for all govt-funded science) should be take…

But the publishers outsource the same work to referees. Why not cut out the middle man and have the funding agencies orchestrate the peer-review? That's what they do for grants anyway.

Re: Should All Research Papers Be Free?

#277

Post by winter_blue »

BlackFly wrote: post #271
winter_blue wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Can you believe it? Paywalling. PDFs. For billions. Wow, I'm amazed that a scientists of all people would tolerate such a scam. Why don't they come together, and en masse leave these pay-walled journals, and switch to free open ones? In politics, you hear about how uneducated voters are tricked by politicians, but this is far more worse. Here you've got some of the most intelligent and creative people on the planet…

Publish or Perish is a highly accurate description of the career. Improving the publishing experience is not the same as publishing, so while you and a couple of your colleagues band together to improve the process, another colleague continues to publish and now looks better than you on paper.

Hmm.. If only governments required that any research it funds be published in open access journals. If enough people around the world are made aware of this issue, they could petition their government to enact such a policy...

Re: Should All Research Papers Be Free?

#278

Post by raverbashing »

matwood wrote: post #273
emodendroket wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, maybe there is better stuff somewhere. Nonetheless, its position as an selective and influential journal with excellent research is pretty secure, which is precisely why they can charge. I still don't see it as quite analogous to an expensive handbag.

You see my point though. Charging to be in the journal means that there may be amazing research that simply refused to pay. Charging to be published in the journal is at odds with it always containing the best research.

Exactly that

Papers published there are certainly at a high quality level, in predicate logic:

A - Published on Nature

B - Good Research

A -> B is true, which does not imply !A -> !B

Re: Should All Research Papers Be Free?

#279

Post by _of »

dinkumthinkum wrote: post #152
robertwalsh0 wrote: post #147

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.

The majority of scientific research in the U.S. and elsewhere is funded by tax-payers money in the form of research grants. The outcome of this research (the paper) should be free.

Re: Should All Research Papers Be Free?

#280

Post by julie1 »

Should leibniz, keppler, Einstein, newton, flemming, jenner papers should have been free?

Oh they were. And it is thanks to flemming that people stopped dying in atrocious ways over the world from gangrene.

Should citizens be able to access state of the art research about how to prevent vascular disease, dietetic, chemical pollution, effects of fracking, urbanisms to help them make good choices when voting? I do think so.

Because no vote exists without enlighten choices.

Chosing without relevant information on future choice that will impact every one require citizens that can have a constructed opinion. And experts are doing a poor job at being right. (look at the financial regulations made by experts and the long lasting crisis since 2000).

So yes, papers should be free to support the exercise of democracy.

Post reply on HN