Live data from Hacker News

Time to break academic publishing's stranglehold on research

newscientist.com

141–150 of 312 posts

Re: Time to break academic publishing's stranglehold on research

#141

The trouble here is that the entire academic structure is extremely difficult to question and change. Disrupting academia is kind of like disrupting the Catholic Church. It's so entrenched in its assumptions and rituals that trying to bring revolutionary change to it is pretty hopeless. Professors gained their status in this archaic structure and will resist challenging it. I mean, your PhD advisor will make sure you…

> I mean, your PhD advisor will make sure you never challenge the research status quo with your thesis topic

This will come as a surprise to both my PhD advisor and my current advisee

Re: Time to break academic publishing's stranglehold on research

#142
post #98
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

because while that might make sense at the field level, it relies on scholars getting credit for that work, which few do.

Could you elaborate on what you mean by scholars getting credit for their work?

Very few tenure committees, funding agencies, etc. give equal weight to an arXiv pre-print and a published paper.

Re: Time to break academic publishing's stranglehold on research

#143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry if my reply seems trite, but the same sorts of things could be said about the cab, bookstore, and music industries. They were entrenched and difficult to take down, but most are better for it.

Sure, I wasn't saying it's not possible to disrupt publishers, and I'm not discouraging anyone from trying. I'm simply saying that to do so you're absolutely going to have to understand what makes the industry work the way it does. If you don't understand your users (in this case academics, tenure committees, universities, grant funding bodies, etc) then you're not going to make a dent in the status quo. I'm more jus…

Fair enough, makes sense.

Re: Time to break academic publishing's stranglehold on research

#144

Academic publishing is a favorite recurring topic on HN, and it's one I've occasionally dipped into discussing, although these discussions are typically 99% one-sided and void of nuance or reasoned arguments. It's like discussing politics online. I'm a shareholder and board member of a large privately-held, family-owned academic publishing company. If anyone is interested in trying to understand what makes the indust…

Sorry if my reply seems trite, but the same sorts of things could be said about the cab, bookstore, and music industries. They were entrenched and difficult to take down, but most are better for it.

While agreeing to the general principle, incentive structures are wired quiet differently in academia vs end consumer oriented gig/service industries.

Publications ( number, when, where, citations) is the primary currency/value in which one is judged within the peers in academia, and reputation outside the immediate academic community has a much lower weight. Whereas for online market places solid revune is the first priority and then comes reputation ( which is a means for the higher reveune). In academia it is the reverse, with reputation ( in a small clique) being the primary motivator, and funding being the means to gather it.

Re: Time to break academic publishing's stranglehold on research

#145
post #53

Why don't people just publish through Arxiv? Is there not a discussion forum where people can post, discover, and comment on new papers? If you know of one for CS, do comment.

> Why don't people just publish through Arxiv?

ArXiv is not peer reviewed.

Re: Time to break academic publishing's stranglehold on research

#146

Academic publishing is a favorite recurring topic on HN, and it's one I've occasionally dipped into discussing, although these discussions are typically 99% one-sided and void of nuance or reasoned arguments. It's like discussing politics online. I'm a shareholder and board member of a large privately-held, family-owned academic publishing company. If anyone is interested in trying to understand what makes the indust…

I'm not sure people are trying to fix academic publishing so much as burn Elsevier to the ground. Whether or how they are replaced is a separate question.

https://www.talyarkoni.org/blog/2016/12/12/why-i-still-wont-...

Re: Time to break academic publishing's stranglehold on research

#147
post #41
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Sphenodon in the room is that the raison d'etre of the entire Academic structure is unclear. So that should be clarified first. Advancing science is one thing. Publishing as many papers as possible, breaking research into MPUs is another. Lecturing to youth completely uninterested to be taught is yet another vertical.

I think you may be confusing vague with unclear... The inclarity, and multiple verticals seems more like an example of Goodhart's law than anything else. Summarized, the goal of academia is and (for most of time in whatever form it took) is to produce and disseminate new knowledge for human society. Creating new knowledge is what we now call research. Publishing papers isn't a raison d'etre...it's a metric for that.…

[deleted]

Re: Time to break academic publishing's stranglehold on research

#148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you summarize, in 50 words or less, what tangible benefit your family’s business provides to justify the intermediation? I’ll wait.

Not sure if you're asking about the role that academic journals play in general, or about what specific actions publishers do. Journals in general serve to curate an ever-increasing body of research and provide a crude method of gauging scientific quality, relevance to your field, and importance. They provide a crude method of judging the impact of scholars without having to read every single paper ever published. Pu…

What you say about journals is correct.

But what you say about commercial academic publishers is a relatively recent development. Traditionally, universities and professional societies ran journals. As you say, publishers did the grunt work. However, they did it on a work-for-hire basis. It wasn't until the 50s or so that profiteers took over the academic publishing industry.

Re: Time to break academic publishing's stranglehold on research

#149
post #129

Academic publishing is a favorite recurring topic on HN, and it's one I've occasionally dipped into discussing, although these discussions are typically 99% one-sided and void of nuance or reasoned arguments. It's like discussing politics online. I'm a shareholder and board member of a large privately-held, family-owned academic publishing company. If anyone is interested in trying to understand what makes the indust…

> You have to realize publishers are in the reputation business. Everyone realizes this. The problem is that you're abusing your position in this reputation system for profit. Do you think $40 is a fair price to read a paper from 1987? https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/109434208700100...

I'd say, instead, that they've taken over the reputation business, and are burning it down, converting legitimacy into money.

Re: Time to break academic publishing's stranglehold on research

#150

Academic publishing is a favorite recurring topic on HN, and it's one I've occasionally dipped into discussing, although these discussions are typically 99% one-sided and void of nuance or reasoned arguments. It's like discussing politics online. I'm a shareholder and board member of a large privately-held, family-owned academic publishing company. If anyone is interested in trying to understand what makes the indust…

You have to realize publishers are in the reputation business. And when you start peeling back the onion of how academics are assessed, given jobs, given tenure, etc you start seeing how hard changing behavior can be.

there is no doubt about that. but maybe it's time to question how science is done in general.

in the end the goal is to advance our knowledge and bring humanity forward.

but instead of everyone cooperating to do just that, they are competing with each other, and try to outdo each other. a lot of energy is wasted in preventing others from stealing your research ideas and being the first to publish on a particular topic. instead of looking at the benefits of the research published in a paper, and whether the results can be reproduced, instead what matters more is how many citations the paper can get.

reputation has become more important than producing actual results. academics and academic institutions are measured not in the quality of their research, but in the amount of papers and citations they can produce, to the point that researchers who can't dedicate their life to their work, because they have family, or worse, are a single parent, can't get a job, let alone tenure, because they can't put in the time required even though they may well put in more effort than others into the time they do have.

so yes, i acknowledge that changing this is going to be extremely hard. but it looks to me like changing the way papers are published will be the easiest step, because the components that actually matter are distribution, which is technology, and reviewers, which are academics.

the only thing that i see publishers doing is to edit the journals and decide what to publish. but shouldn't exactly that, also be done by academics?

how about a model like stackoverflow? papers are published like questions, and reviews are the answers. readers upvote good papers and good reviews, so that the most upvoted and most reviewed papers float to the top. the citation count can be included in the score too.

greetings, eMBee.

Post reply on HN