Live data from Hacker News

Why I still won’t review for or publish with Elsevier

talyarkoni.org

61–70 of 148 posts

Re: Why I still won’t review for or publish with Elsevier

#61
post #42
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to go on, the distribution of Elsevier and Taschen is pretty damn esoteric. I have never had a problem spending money on educational material that was way beyond what you can find in public libraries (Internet these days). Not really been following print for a while. I'd like to think they still maintain that standard despite current trends. Sad if that is not the case.

> I have never had a problem spending money on educational material that was way beyond what you can find in public libraries (Internet these days). Cool story, rich bro. Taschen and Elsevier are actually very good publishers to compare, not because they are "esoteric," but because both many scientists and many artists benefit from public grants. Taschen does not actively work to keep work it publishes from public li…

Alright, I'll buy that.

The difference between Elsevier and Taschen is that people like us don't appreciate computer science as much as art.

We expect to get everything for free online, not something I can hold in my hand.

Meanwhile I'd love to own an original copy of an Escher and stick it on my wall.

Other people pay good money every month to play world of Warcraft. I'm guessing amortized over time, more than Elsevier charges.

What do you want? Free everything, fine. It's available. Original content that someone worked really hard for and has a stupendously limited audience, but is presented with style and panache. There is that too.

At this point I don't know what I'm really suggesting. I can't say I like $25 paywalls. That isn't me, and I don't have the pocket change for it either.

That said, I do appreciate "known good reliable sources". and am willing to pay a premium.

I think "criminal" is probably a bit much. I'd like to understand the economics first. Nobody buys newspapers any more either. $.25c was criminal too, and look where the news is now.

I'm thinking.

Re: Why I still won’t review for or publish with Elsevier

#62
post #42
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to go on, the distribution of Elsevier and Taschen is pretty damn esoteric. I have never had a problem spending money on educational material that was way beyond what you can find in public libraries (Internet these days). Not really been following print for a while. I'd like to think they still maintain that standard despite current trends. Sad if that is not the case.

> I have never had a problem spending money on educational material that was way beyond what you can find in public libraries (Internet these days). Cool story, rich bro. Taschen and Elsevier are actually very good publishers to compare, not because they are "esoteric," but because both many scientists and many artists benefit from public grants. Taschen does not actively work to keep work it publishes from public li…

[deleted]

Re: Why I still won’t review for or publish with Elsevier

#63
post #42
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to go on, the distribution of Elsevier and Taschen is pretty damn esoteric. I have never had a problem spending money on educational material that was way beyond what you can find in public libraries (Internet these days). Not really been following print for a while. I'd like to think they still maintain that standard despite current trends. Sad if that is not the case.

> I have never had a problem spending money on educational material that was way beyond what you can find in public libraries (Internet these days). Cool story, rich bro. Taschen and Elsevier are actually very good publishers to compare, not because they are "esoteric," but because both many scientists and many artists benefit from public grants. Taschen does not actively work to keep work it publishes from public li…

[deleted]

Re: Why I still won’t review for or publish with Elsevier

#64
post #42
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to go on, the distribution of Elsevier and Taschen is pretty damn esoteric. I have never had a problem spending money on educational material that was way beyond what you can find in public libraries (Internet these days). Not really been following print for a while. I'd like to think they still maintain that standard despite current trends. Sad if that is not the case.

> I have never had a problem spending money on educational material that was way beyond what you can find in public libraries (Internet these days). Cool story, rich bro. Taschen and Elsevier are actually very good publishers to compare, not because they are "esoteric," but because both many scientists and many artists benefit from public grants. Taschen does not actively work to keep work it publishes from public li…

[deleted]

Re: Why I still won’t review for or publish with Elsevier

#65
post #42
post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to go on, the distribution of Elsevier and Taschen is pretty damn esoteric. I have never had a problem spending money on educational material that was way beyond what you can find in public libraries (Internet these days). Not really been following print for a while. I'd like to think they still maintain that standard despite current trends. Sad if that is not the case.

> I have never had a problem spending money on educational material that was way beyond what you can find in public libraries (Internet these days). Cool story, rich bro. Taschen and Elsevier are actually very good publishers to compare, not because they are "esoteric," but because both many scientists and many artists benefit from public grants. Taschen does not actively work to keep work it publishes from public li…

[deleted]

Re: Why I still won’t review for or publish with Elsevier

#66
post #20

While I very much abhor the practices of Elsevier, one has to be really careful how one acts to push back. Even without getting into the result that not interacting with Elsevier has on careers in the biomedical sciences, it's easy to fall into traps with other publishing firms. For instance, PlosOne is a pay-to-publish "alternative". However, the motivations here are backwards. PlosOne makes money for each accepted…

> Even without getting into the result that not interacting with Elsevier has on careers in the biomedical sciences... The author of the article addresses this concern in the "What you can do" section. He says he's noticed no ill effects from avoiding Elsevier journals and that most people are likely to have the same experience. As for PLOS ONE's business model, it's possible that it sets up some perverse incentives,…

Well, I explicitly endorse the APS model, so there you go.

Re: Why I still won’t review for or publish with Elsevier

#67
post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even without getting into the result that not interacting with Elsevier has on careers in the biomedical sciences... The author of the article addresses this concern in the "What you can do" section. He says he's noticed no ill effects from avoiding Elsevier journals and that most people are likely to have the same experience. As for PLOS ONE's business model, it's possible that it sets up some perverse incentives,…

What are the other choices? PLOS ONE is the only open-access journal I know of that has a good reputation, isn't limited to a narrow field, and isn't just a trash-heap of unpublishable nonsense. This reputation, at least, is an incentive for them to do good peer review.

Again, journals run by professional groups are a terrific way to avoid both the bad behaviour of Elsevier and the apparent pay to play that shows up with PLOS ONE.

Re: Why I still won’t review for or publish with Elsevier

#68
post #53
post #48

What value does Elsevier provide comparing to something like arxiv.org? Just curious.

Basically, reputation. Arxiv isn't peer reviewed and thus you get a lot of crap on there (just have a look for proofs of goldbach's conjecture). Because the barrier to entry is low you dont get any kudos for publishing there, and the performance of academics in many institutions is essentially based on the kudos they get for publishing in big journals.

Thanks for clarifying. I guess ML community is different though, even conference cannot keep up the pace of development, journal would be way too slow. But that might not be case for other domains.

Re: Why I still won’t review for or publish with Elsevier

#69
post #29
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being published by Elsevier has some "cachet". Maybe they capitalize on that, I'm not sure. Although I had the possibility of publishing with them I turned it down, only because at the time I was way too busy and already had a deal running with Charles River. But mostly because... way too busy. I guess it depends what you want from a book deal. Any book deals I have been approached for have never been for financial g…

Maybe they have the cachet of "reasonable competence", but what has cachet are the journals themselves. Books are way less relevant than papers, and their publishers are even less relevant. E.g., nobody cares who publishes Science or Nature.

That depends a lot on the field. At the more philosophical end of my discipline (politics) a good book published by a first-or-second-tier publisher (one of the major university presses, plus the best of the commercial publishers) is a major career progression requirement.

In my part (quantitative, mainly methodology) it's all done in journals and monographs are rare. It really does depend.

Re: Why I still won’t review for or publish with Elsevier

#70

The scientific publishing industry makes no sense to me. It wouldn't take much for a few universities to get together to set up the required infrastructure for sustaining the entire enterprise online with on-demand printing as a last resort. Why they don't do this is the part that makes no sense to me. What is the value that Elsevier is adding to have the de-facto monopoly on the entire enterprise of scientific publi…

Arxiv for life man
Post reply on HN