Elsevier cuts off UC’s access to its academic journals • Hacker News Board

Re: Elsevier cuts off UC’s access to its academic journals

#171

Post by azernik » Sat, Jul 13, 2019, 8:47 PM UTC

gumby wrote: post #50

This is excellent! Elsevier could have started by extorting smaller, less powerful institutions but foolishly went after a university they need more than it needs them.

Those smaller, less powerful institutions haven't dared to confront Elsevier in the way UC has. Since Elsevier represents the status quo, its opponents are on the offensive and can self-select. They tend to be either big institutions (UC) or collectives (several Europe-wide or EU-state-wide programs) big enough to stand toe-to-toe with the publishers.

Re: Elsevier cuts off UC’s access to its academic journals

#172

Post by CuriousSkeptic » Sat, Jul 13, 2019, 8:50 PM UTC

michaelmrose wrote: post #127

marksomnian wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copyright as an idea is fine - as in, how it was described in the Constitution: "securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries", emphasis on "limited times". It's our current batarnak of an implementation that's causing all the problems. Getting rid of copyright and instituting a copy-anarchy would mean that creatives would have no real incentive…

How about a combination of - free health care for all - universal basic income at a really basic subsidence level - voluntary patronage People define themselves by their art if they can live a reasonable life and produce they will do it.

I had this idea the other day that we should top this of with a type of “democratic” investment fund. Think pension funds, but structured to ensure a democratic representation of the public as owners, one share per citizen.

The idea being to allocate to each citizen an equal share, for equal voting power, and equal right to dividends.

Re: Elsevier cuts off UC’s access to its academic journals

#173

Post by natechols » Sat, Jul 13, 2019, 8:51 PM UTC

xiii1408 wrote: post #101

driverdan wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have had to publish in journals that are not open access Why is that?

Career progress in academia is mostly based on publications in top-tier journals in your field. If those journals aren't open access, you're required to publish in closed access journals if you want to (1) get a Ph.D., (2) get tenure, etc.

Correction: you do not need to publish in closed access journals to get a PhD. However, getting a tenure-track faculty position in the life sciences at a major US university is almost impossible without publishing in Science, Nature, or Cell (an Elsevier journal), none of which is open-access (without paying an exorbitant fee).

Re: Elsevier cuts off UC’s access to its academic journals

#174

Post by ant6n » Sat, Jul 13, 2019, 8:51 PM UTC

mmastrac wrote: post #84

> in the words of Dennis J. Ventry, a law professor at UC Davis who is vice chair of the academic senate’s committee on library and scholarly communication. He says the publisher’s last offer would have increased UC costs by 80% over three years, “hardly cost neutrality.” > Elsevier says its proposal would have allowed a fivefold increase in the number of UC articles it published under open access — from about 350 no…

At least one party...

Re: Elsevier cuts off UC’s access to its academic journals

#175

Post by aj7 » Sat, Jul 13, 2019, 8:53 PM UTC

api wrote: post #97

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly feel like intellectual property is harmful in almost every field I look at. It concentrates wealth and slows innovation (the opposite of what IP proponents claim). I voluntarily waive copyright protection for most of my work, but I’d ideally see the dissolution of the concept more broadly. Our government protects these laws which I see as unjust, and some change to that would be beneficial I believe.

What I've seen in tech is that a patent is a straw asset to make the bean counters feel more comfortable. The value of non-capital-intensive tech companies is almost entirely ephemeral. Even for capital intensive ones most of the value is usually not in the physical capital but in the brand, ideas, collective employee knowledge, and customer relationships. A patent looks like a physical asset on the books so it makes…

No. A patent is like a nuclear missile. It’s useless until it is not. That said, you have to be very wealthy to fire those missiles, generally wealthier than your target.

Re: Elsevier cuts off UC’s access to its academic journals

#176

Post by natechols » Sat, Jul 13, 2019, 8:54 PM UTC

bahmboo wrote: post #168

bahmboo wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't that just put it back in the hands of the Federal Gov where it would languish like it did before?

From the wikipedia article that was referred to: Prior to the enactment of Bayh-Dole, the U.S. government had accumulated 28,000 patents, but fewer than 5% of those patents were commercially licensed Not saying I understand the complexities but an outright repeal doesn't seem like it would address this underlying systemic problem. Maybe times have changed.

They haven't changed. Some government agencies excel at basic research (NIH, DOE, NASA, etc.), but for a multitude of reasons, they don't do product development. (And having worked at one of these agencies for several years, I think it would be a terrible mistake to change this - even though I personally have very mixed feelings about how Bayh-Dole has worked out.)

Re: Elsevier cuts off UC’s access to its academic journals

#177

Post by new2628 » Sat, Jul 13, 2019, 8:54 PM UTC

xiii1408 wrote: post #101

driverdan wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have had to publish in journals that are not open access Why is that?

Career progress in academia is mostly based on publications in top-tier journals in your field. If those journals aren't open access, you're required to publish in closed access journals if you want to (1) get a Ph.D., (2) get tenure, etc.

With all respect, this attitude from the researchers side is exactly what maintains the system and what Elsevier and co take advantage of. Signed: a professor who never published with Elsevier.

Re: Elsevier cuts off UC’s access to its academic journals

#178

Post by aj7 » Sat, Jul 13, 2019, 8:55 PM UTC

jasonhansel wrote: post #134

Now all that Elsevier has to do is eliminate piracy! Just like how the RIAA eliminated piracy, and we are all still willing to pay 99 cents for a new song on iTunes. (sarcasm)

Actually that’s a great idea.

Re: Elsevier cuts off UC’s access to its academic journals

#179

Post by aj7 » Sat, Jul 13, 2019, 8:58 PM UTC

dan-robertson wrote: post #82

Is this the first time Elsevier has cut off a major group of universities? In all the similar past occasions I know about, Elsevier would threaten to cut off access but not flow through, out of the kindness of their hearts and for the good of academia (or rather for fear that the universities might discover they don’t get much value out of Elsevier) One thing Elsevier builds their strategy on is bundling: that to get…

Sounds like cable TV.

Re: Elsevier cuts off UC’s access to its academic journals

#180

Post by rayiner » Sat, Jul 13, 2019, 8:58 PM UTC

sitkack wrote: post #136

dproblem wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your university commercialization office will disagree. Check with them. From what I understand, it is illegal to release your code in CC0 or MIT unless you have taken permission from the commercialization office (Some universities allow GPL without explicit permission). Have you checked your contract ? Your work is not yours if it has any value. The value belongs to the university (mostly) - which also means you hav…

As enabled by Bayh–Dole Act [0]. Reversing this law would put publicly funded research back into the hands and minds of the public. This is the very law that creates a perverse incentive for universities to operate as for profit corporations, even with public dollars. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayh%E2%80%93Dole_Act

Imagine a VC that demanded ownership of 100% of all code you developed and user data you collected in return for accepting any investment from them. Would any good startup take the money? Without Bayh-Dole, the government would be in the same position as that hypothetical VC.

Innovation is about money, not ideals. More money flowing into research universities is a good thing.