Live data from Hacker News

Time to break academic publishing's stranglehold on research

newscientist.com

181–190 of 312 posts

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

#181
post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You have to realize publishers are in the reputation business. That's right, and that's also why the prestigious researchers and universities, those with an already established reputation, have a responsibility: collectively leave the editorial boards of for-profit publishers, set up alternative venues with the help of university libraries. Share the archival, indexing and discovery effort among universities via pe…

The problem is that the vast majority of established researchers do not care that the system is broken. Why work against the system once you're at the top? Most of them haven't ever thought about it, and the ones who know usually don't do much, because, hey, that's the way it was always done, they are used to the current journals and conferences being prestigious, and they don't want to bother with the unglamorous wo…

This. I used to be an academic a few years back and most of the top academics thought everything was peachy. Also, certain subfields are much worse compared to others. I was a biology transplant from physics and I was shocked that preprints were actively looked down upon in biology and generally in biomedical sciences. The publishing fees often went into several thousand dollars per publication and mostly bothered only the junior academics. Oftentimes, grants would have a separate budget for publishing or if you were powerful you could get the university to pay your fees. The people who it impacted the most were those with the least power so it didn't matter. I knew postdocs who paid publishing fees from their meagre pockets because the PIs said they wouldn't or put onerous conditions like adding themselves or other members to the author list.

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

#182
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.

Posting on arxiv is useful for making results available early, and to make published work available in some form that isn’t pay walled, but posting on arxiv on its own is not publishing as it isn’t peer reviewed.

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

#184
post #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 cooperat…

> which is technology, and reviewers, which are academics.

There is another factor to consider - the outsiders. They need to know which research is good and which isn't and independent journals giving a stamp of approval to create "branded" science helps.

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

#185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Allow me to turn the tables a little: - why don’t publishers pay reviewers for the extensive time they spend reviewing the paper? - why don’t publishers pay academics who edit journals, another time consuming task? - why don’t publishers pay academics or institutions for a product they sell? I can’t comment on your company, but the above is the status quo for most of academia. Do you think this business model is ethi…

Because those people are already being paid anyway - their full time jobs, whether that’s PhD student, lecturer, professor, or industrial researcher, includes the job of reviewing and editing for publications. It’s a society. You publish papers which get reviews, and you also work to review other people’s papers. Everyone contributes to make it work.

> Because those people are already being paid anyway

What about when the tax payers fund the research and then they have to pay to access it? Didn't they "already pay for it"?

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

#186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because those people are already being paid anyway - their full time jobs, whether that’s PhD student, lecturer, professor, or industrial researcher, includes the job of reviewing and editing for publications. It’s a society. You publish papers which get reviews, and you also work to review other people’s papers. Everyone contributes to make it work.

> Because those people are already being paid anyway What about when the tax payers fund the research and then they have to pay to access it? Didn't they "already pay for it"?

You're asking a totally separate question - you're asking 'since tax payers funded the research shouldn't they be able to see the output?' That's a great question.

But the question I was replying to was 'who is paying the reviewers'. The answer is that their employers are.

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

#187
Surely the system should be like ... Hacker News.

We publish here, and the stuff that is good rises to the top with upvotes from our peers, and it is all subject to review in the comments where many an interesting discussion is had.

We all gain by sharing ideas as widely as possible. We just need a way for that to happen.

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

#188
post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You have to realize publishers are in the reputation business. That's right, and that's also why the prestigious researchers and universities, those with an already established reputation, have a responsibility: collectively leave the editorial boards of for-profit publishers, set up alternative venues with the help of university libraries. Share the archival, indexing and discovery effort among universities via pe…

The problem is that the vast majority of established researchers do not care that the system is broken. Why work against the system once you're at the top? Most of them haven't ever thought about it, and the ones who know usually don't do much, because, hey, that's the way it was always done, they are used to the current journals and conferences being prestigious, and they don't want to bother with the unglamorous wo…

> the vast majority of established researchers do not care that the system is broken.

I've been arguing that it's a coordination problem.

Aspiring scientists don't have the pull to change the system (if they move individually they only bear the individual disadvantages without bringing about the big collective benefit), and established scientists generally don't care or are too busy with other things [1].

That's why a concerted ("political") move like this cOAlition S thing is so important, and I find it very disappointing that academics speak out against it. I will read more to understand why.

[1] With notable exceptions, like Don Knuth getting the editorial board of the (Elsevier) Journal of Algorithms to resign and move to a new journal, taking the reputation with them.

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

#189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Allow me to turn the tables a little: - why don’t publishers pay reviewers for the extensive time they spend reviewing the paper? - why don’t publishers pay academics who edit journals, another time consuming task? - why don’t publishers pay academics or institutions for a product they sell? I can’t comment on your company, but the above is the status quo for most of academia. Do you think this business model is ethi…

Because those people are already being paid anyway - their full time jobs, whether that’s PhD student, lecturer, professor, or industrial researcher, includes the job of reviewing and editing for publications. It’s a society. You publish papers which get reviews, and you also work to review other people’s papers. Everyone contributes to make it work.

To expand on what the parent said, what makes it weird that the incentives for people in the community are mixed: there are market incentives (mainly publishers), community incentive (reviews and volunteer expert work), resume incentives (pubs in top journals). They interact in weird and sometimes toxic ways.

(Disclaimer: comfortably funded post doc here)

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

#190

Surely the system should be like ... Hacker News. We publish here, and the stuff that is good rises to the top with upvotes from our peers, and it is all subject to review in the comments where many an interesting discussion is had. We all gain by sharing ideas as widely as possible. We just need a way for that to happen.

Or, maybe not.

An academic article is not a blog post. Also, only the most popular posts get discussed here -- tons of stuff is lost if it's not initially popular. Timing your submission allows for gaming the system.

All scholarly articles need to go through peer review and receive honest, constructive feedback -- especially the bad ones, and Hacker News (and Reddit and Slashdot and any system like that which doesn't assign reviewers to articles) isn't very good at that.

Post reply on HN