Time to break academic publishing's stranglehold on research • Hacker News Board

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

#301

Post by eecc » Mon, Nov 26, 2018, 9:50 PM UTC

ms013 wrote: post #177

eecc wrote: post #152

Academics, I have a proposal/question and was curious if such a system would work for you. Here it goes: Take a P2P program similar to Kazaa or BitTorrent to share paper pdfs and datasets. Next to these files also share indexes, derived data for searching. Next to that, also share user generated review comments and endorsements to implement peer review and quality filtering. Finally, digitally sign all these data to…

The problem isn’t technical. The current flaws in the publishing system are not due to lack of indexing, data distribution, provenance, or filtering. And please, please, please, don’t turn reviews into some user driven drivel like amazon product reviews or other systems that are easily gamed or prone to the whims of the masses. We already have problems with gaming and personal agendas making reviews less than imparti…

I understand, please see clarifications in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18537122

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

#302

Post by Y7ZCQtNo39 » Tue, Nov 27, 2018, 12:33 AM UTC

ylmm wrote: post #111

Y7ZCQtNo39 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience, academia is largely driven by money. Professors at my university were recognized for the money they brought to the university first and foremost it seemed, rather than for any discoveries/innovations in a particular field.

Ah, I know a former engineering professor who left a large flagship university in the Midwest for exactly that reason. Based on what he told me that's more a phenomenon specific to institutions without a lot of money than a general truth about academia.

This resonates with me, as my alma mater definitely doesn't have much (compared to the top endowments out there). It's not amount to sneeze at, but still, there are others ahead of us.

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

#303

Post by mirimir » Tue, Nov 27, 2018, 1:19 AM UTC

dougmccune wrote: post #272

randomsearch wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there is plenty of engagement in that conversation, via new alternative publishing models, but putting that aside for a second, I think there are two separate issues here: 1. Academia has a broken incentive model. I agree with you, I think this is a valid point. 2. Academic publishing is an exploitative monopolistic business. I don't think the big publishers will be able to do much about (1), because they hav…

I hear you and it's a totally valid point. We could start paying reviewers tomorrow. I'm not convinced that adding a monetary incentive to the peer review process doesn't have its own serious negative consequences, but I'm certainly open to the idea that that's a potentially better version of the system than what we have now. It's certainly a difficult business decision to push through, given the universal lack of an…

That is a sobering article.

It's clear that Sci-Hub is the only viable strategy.

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

#304

Post by mirimir » Tue, Nov 27, 2018, 1:42 AM UTC

dougmccune wrote: post #258

mirimir wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is true. Someone else in this thread posted the long-form article about the history of Robert Maxwell, which is absolutely worth the read. I'm definitely not of the opinion that the existing publishing system is the only way (or the best way) for science to be conducted.

Yes, and the article that you cited. Thank you for that :)

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

#305

Post by Fomite » Tue, Nov 27, 2018, 5:01 AM UTC

shrimpx wrote: post #289

Fomite wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

You should elaborate. In my experience academia is largely a status structure where people are groomed to be hirable at schools X, Y, Z and publish regularly in conferences/journals A, B, C. You're saying this is fertile ground for hardcore innovation? No way. The extreme majority of the work is incremental and predictable; small low-impact results. (Disclaimer: My experience is in CS.)

Alright, I'll elaborate.

My dissertation was based on a highly speculative new treatment, in a field where mathematical models are not widely used. One of the potential answers was "Yes, this should entirely change the course of care for a particular disease."

My current advisee's first paper is, essentially, "Has the field been doing this wrong this whole time?"

Note that I publish regularly in the good society level journals in my field, and on occasion in the splashier journals, got a tenure track job at an R1 university, and have enough grant funding to cover my lab.

Also, your assertion that "incremental" research can't change the research status quo is flawed.

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

#306

Post by Fomite » Tue, Nov 27, 2018, 5:05 AM UTC

qwerty456127 wrote: post #153

Fomite wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People have tried this, or spins on it, and they don't particularly gain traction. Part of the problem is these have to exist alongside the traditional structure, and "Hey academics, do you want to be busier for intangible rewards?" is a hard sell.

What are, if any, the reasons these have to exist alongside the traditional structure other than the fact only specific reputable traditional journals are recognized as valid publication places by universities boards and other relevant institutions?

So you mean, "other than the fact that reputable journals are the entire basis for the dissemination of new research results, the core of hiring and promotion, and a major aspect of funding"?

The simple fact is that like any replacement system, there has to be a reason for it to exist. And for a social network, there have to be network effects in place. Fragmentation is a problem. "Oops, we ran out of VC money..." is a problem. Hell, "We got bought by Spinger" is a problem.

In the very long term, they don't have to exist along side each other. In the medium term though, they do. Otherwise, it's like going from "I'm going to quit my job tomorrow with no savings!" to "I live sustainably on my off the grid farm" with no plan for how to eat in the middle.

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

#307

Post by em-bee » Tue, Nov 27, 2018, 5:58 AM UTC

jasode wrote: post #287

em-bee wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>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 problem is that long-form works that require substantial analysis by experts (such as scientific papers read by competent scientists) don't work for a voting system like Stackoverflow. Internet voti…

right. votes would just be for the general popupation, to show which papers are popular. if votes are used at all.

scientists would focus on actual reviews and citations.

the only challenge i see is how we motivate people to write reviews. perhaps as some sort of a trade. for every paper uploaded you are expected to review 3 other papers. so that each paper can get at least 3 reviews.

there is also a potential for making a difference between public and private reviews.

private reviews would be like prepublishing reviews now, and public reviews like opinions about a paper after it's published.

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

#308

Post by Ericson2314 » Tue, Nov 27, 2018, 6:24 AM UTC

geoalchimista wrote: post #121

Ericson2314 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can precisely "quarantine" the "human referree part within the framework of a formal proof. That's still a huge step forward from the status quo of reasoning and opinion being smeared together and nothing formal.

> You can precisely "quarantine" the "human referree part within the framework of a formal proof. I think it is unlikely you can separate the two precisely. If it be so, mathematicians can replace doctors who make diagnoses. I don't think all empirical facts can fit nicely into a formal proof system. But still, any effort to reduce the burden on the human referees would be welcome. This said proof system for peer rev…

I take it as trivially true that they can be separated shallowly. Then the question is how big the informal "leaps of faith" are. If they are big, the next thing is to look for "strands" of reasoning (lemmas that may not be connected) inside them, as a sort of formal proof reverse-marginalia.

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

#309

Post by BurnGpuBurn » Tue, Nov 27, 2018, 7:53 AM UTC

rsa4046 wrote: post #11

justinpombrio wrote: post #5

For anyone who still doesn't know this: publishers do not pay paper authors, in any field. I am also not aware of a publisher paying peer reviewers. (Lowly soon-to-be-postdoc here; a professor would be able to say more.)

In academia (at least the hard sciences), no faculty are ever paid for publishing in mainstream, peer-reviewed journals. No reviewers are ever paid either, although recently Elsevier has started to publish the names of its "star reviewers", presumably as a token for the large investment in time and expertise required to evaluate papers for publication and improve the field. Even book deals (or editorships) yield no r…

> the lay public is hilariously misinformed

When I start thinking about what we lay public have been denied, in welfare, progress and life, just because scientists don't share the knowledge the lay public pays them to produce, the word hilarious isn't what's coming to mind.

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

#310

Post by randomsearch » Tue, Nov 27, 2018, 11:19 AM UTC

dougmccune wrote: post #272

randomsearch wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there is plenty of engagement in that conversation, via new alternative publishing models, but putting that aside for a second, I think there are two separate issues here: 1. Academia has a broken incentive model. I agree with you, I think this is a valid point. 2. Academic publishing is an exploitative monopolistic business. I don't think the big publishers will be able to do much about (1), because they hav…

I hear you and it's a totally valid point. We could start paying reviewers tomorrow. I'm not convinced that adding a monetary incentive to the peer review process doesn't have its own serious negative consequences, but I'm certainly open to the idea that that's a potentially better version of the system than what we have now. It's certainly a difficult business decision to push through, given the universal lack of an…

Other disciplines do indeed pay reviewers - a friend's partner told me about being paid in the humanities. So it can work as a model.

Regarding the monopoly comment: firstly, you have (usually) a complete monopoly on the content you provide. The same paper is available from one publisher.

If we talk in more general terms, then we're in the classic situation where the monopolist (or oligopolist, which is often used synonymously nowadays) pretends they don't have a monopoly, because they don't want to be punished or reformed. But, even if we took your viewpoint, that strength of market power - 5 companies controlling 50% of the market - is overwhelming.

In practice, Elsevier and Springer control nearly all Computer Science publishing (for example), so the situation is extremely bad.