31–40 of 128 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except that leeching has benefits
It does! I wondered if someone would point that out. (Though blood letting does not). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodletting
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Recognition/prestige is what the journals offer. Hosting is incidental. Editing and reviewing too.
I mean, github does too. Some projects have 0 stars, some have 16k; some have 0 contribs, some have thousands; some have no forks, some have hundred. You know what I mean ? All these variables are a pretty good measure of recognition, I check them every time I add dependencies to my projects. And just like any other measure, it isn't perfect and is hackable in ways I haven't imagined yet. Forks are similar to citatio…
I don’t believe that there is an equivalent in academia, one that would capture the h-index dynamic (copied by PageRank) that a star from a prestigious professor is worth a lot more. It’s trivial to build, but “growth hacking” for lack of a better word, is hard, especially in areas where actual growth hacking would be frowned upon.
That’s why, for instance, Facebook celebrates its billion of users so much: it’s genuinely hard to make that. Hosting them too, but not in the same way.
Hurra, Elsevier are a band of crooks, they have way more profit margin than giants like google and apple, science does good by moving away from them.
But doesn't that translate to other "industries"? Or, is it recognition that science has a fundamentally greater importance to humanity ... it's that true though, arts are pretty fundamental too, medicine certainly is, housing, food, water supply, sewerage, ... Why do we accept rent-seeking and profiteering and excessive wages and whatever in these other things?
Aside: Seems to me "science must seize [some of] the 'means of production'" is pretty communist.
So, as an academic myself, I have been wondering. Why don't some tech-savy people (the kinds that roam around HN) create an open-source publishing platform and offer journals to use their services for free / cheaply? Something like a GitLab for publishing papers. I wouldn't be surprised if the German government would agree to fund such a thing these days. This would make such a jump for willing editorial boards much…
So, as an academic myself, I have been wondering. Why don't some tech-savy people (the kinds that roam around HN) create an open-source publishing platform and offer journals to use their services for free / cheaply? Something like a GitLab for publishing papers. I wouldn't be surprised if the German government would agree to fund such a thing these days. This would make such a jump for willing editorial boards much…
So, as an academic myself, I have been wondering. Why don't some tech-savy people (the kinds that roam around HN) create an open-source publishing platform and offer journals to use their services for free / cheaply? Something like a GitLab for publishing papers. I wouldn't be surprised if the German government would agree to fund such a thing these days. This would make such a jump for willing editorial boards much…
there are many open source solutions for running a journal. and even low cost publishers that run them. https://elifesciences.org/for-the-press/d8cccde3/elife-coko-... for manuscript submission systems, github has a dozen of projects. Elseviers manuscript system is not sophisticated in any way. but that is not enough to make a new journal successful Your idea has merit however, if a well known name such as google off…
Also tell them that when they apply for funding only scientific research which is available in open journals will be considered.
You'd then get people not only submitting new research in open journals, but making all their backlog available as well to increase their odds of getting funding.
That would chip away even more at the moat of companies like Elsevier since presumably much of their funding is from universities who'll need access to historical research for a long time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
there are many open source solutions for running a journal. and even low cost publishers that run them. https://elifesciences.org/for-the-press/d8cccde3/elife-coko-... for manuscript submission systems, github has a dozen of projects. Elseviers manuscript system is not sophisticated in any way. but that is not enough to make a new journal successful Your idea has merit however, if a well known name such as google off…
do any such submission systems feature (basic) bloat detection? like go through all images, calculate bits per paper area, look at color histogram to detect if vector graphics, like plots or system diagrams or other drawings were submitted as raster images instead of vector graphics in order to prompt the submitter to ask if he still has the original vector graphics format, and then build lists of typical file format…
I am very much against the "huge and stringest" requirements that journals have about formatting. It is a huge time waster for researchers and their students that offers next to zero benefit. About time we switch to HTML formatting & simple microdata for references.
Hurra, Elsevier are a band of crooks, they have way more profit margin than giants like google and apple, science does good by moving away from them.
Basically we want a similar system but at rates where profit is c. 0 (zero) and wages are around the median? But doesn't that translate to other "industries"? Or, is it recognition that science has a fundamentally greater importance to humanity ... it's that true though, arts are pretty fundamental too, medicine certainly is, housing, food, water supply, sewerage, ... Why do we accept rent-seeking and profiteering an…
When the research is funded by the state it seems reasonable.
My impression is that Elsevier is a company locked into the past by a couple of decades. The leadership that I spoke with seemed to have worked in publishing for a very long time. And, probably because of that, they had an old-school publishing mentality with regards to how to reach their customers, provide value, and create revenue.
I sensed that many in the technology team seemed frustrated with their leadership. They had new visions for how to evolve the publishing model to reflect the rise of sci-hub and changes in the industry. However, they were stymied by a very bureaucratic, well-entrenched, and siloed organization.
I expected that the leadership would have some strategy for dealing with this, but it seemed like they were aloof, probably grown fat from decades of near-monopoly. They had a net profit margin of 37% in 2017! Talk about a business ripe for disruption.
Elsevier has been around a very, very long time (wikipedia says 1880), and it shows. I can't imagine getting anything done within that company. So, it's no surprise that some of them are finally leaving to try out a new model. Let's hope for the best.