What you may have heard about the dispute between UC and Elsevier • Hacker News Board

Re: What you may have heard about the dispute between UC and Elsevier

#161

Post by geofft » Wed, Aug 07, 2019, 4:56 PM UTC

buboard wrote: post #106

geofft wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This argument sounds very much like the arguments I remember hearing in the early 2000s about open source. "Sure, Microsoft is bad, but can random hobbyists on the internet produce something of the same quality?" "There's just no way that this Finnish dude wrote an entire operating system from scratch, he must have stolen work from this commercial UNIX that took years of paid engineering work to develop." "MySQL is g…

Thats not a valid analogy because reviewers and authors already work for free for closed-access journals. And open-access journals are not of lower quality, just not as popular. The closest analogy would be the App Store which forces programmers to pay an extortionate tax to have their code 'recognized'.

If I'm understanding you right, I think you're saying that open access is even more tenable than open source, which I agree with :)

But the secret of open source is that it was the same people (or at least the same job roles) who were previously writing proprietary software. Companies just decided that it made more sense to have them collectively, collaboratively work in public on infrastructure software than to pay a single vendor for closed-source code. It's not that hobbyists are implementing core OS scheduling primitives like cgroups, it's that the professional engineers doing that are now employed directly by end users like Facebook or Google instead of by vendors like SCO or Sun.

Re: What you may have heard about the dispute between UC and Elsevier

#162

Post by Nemo_bis » Wed, Aug 07, 2019, 5:09 PM UTC

bschne wrote: post #55

The basic problem with the alternative of open access journals seems to be the incentives to get as many articles out as possible to reap the per-article publication fees, which ends up affecting review/editing quality. Have there been experiments in yet other, more decentralized models of academic publishing? Think something like Arxiv but with more features for discussion/review/endorsments by other researchers in…

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_peer_review

Re: What you may have heard about the dispute between UC and Elsevier

#163

Post by Nemo_bis » Wed, Aug 07, 2019, 5:11 PM UTC

bonoboTP wrote: post #83

zwaps wrote: post #10

Elsevier essentially does nothing but funnel money from researchers to rent seekers. They add just about zero to science, indeed everything they done - which includes absolutely ruining good programs like Mendeley - has directly worked against scientific progress. They are an evil company, through and through.

I haven't used Mendeley in a while. What did they change in it?

See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18977461

Re: What you may have heard about the dispute between UC and Elsevier

#164

Post by Nemo_bis » Wed, Aug 07, 2019, 5:12 PM UTC

jasonmorton wrote: post #150

IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #77

I know we all hate Elsevier, and I do, too. But the assumption in this threat that one could get rid of publishers without any thought and with absolutely no downside is simplifying it slightly too far. Elsevier currently has a margin of about 35%. That's a lot, and probably too much. But it also means they are spending 65% of revenue on something . Even assuming a decent chunk is marketing and sales, there are a few…

There are some high-quality open access journals (e.g. https://www.emis.de/journals/SIGMA/ ) that don't charge authors. They use arxiv overlay. It is entirely possible.

A few hundreds more are listed here: " rel="nofollow">https://doaj.org/search?source=%7B%22query%22%3A%7B%22filter...

Re: What you may have heard about the dispute between UC and Elsevier

#165

Post by madez » Wed, Aug 07, 2019, 5:28 PM UTC

asark wrote: post #133

madez wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just about coordination. Clearly, coordination would make solving the accepted problem relatively easy. Yet, individual action does solve the problem to a small degree. Humans are wired to neclect small changes when they come at a personal cost to them, so they think "it won't change if I stop doing it, so I won't stop doing it". This thinking is arrogant and the cause why many changes in society don't happe…

The problem is that often changing your own behavior hurts you more than it works to effect change, unless lots of others also spontaneously jump onboard. Which, more or less certainly, they won't, so you're basically just self-flagellating in a closet, which might make you feel morally pure but isn't doing anything to change the world. This is a pretty well-studied part of political science (and probably is covered…

> Which, more or less certainly, they won't, so you're basically just self-flagellating in a closet, which might make you feel morally pure but isn't doing anything to change the world.

I think you are factually wrong and condecending in the way you express it.

One case I can bring is the vegan product market in Germany. For many years, individuals were "self-flagellating in a closet" and simply avoiding animals products and buying the alternatives that were offered. That triggered the production of more of these products, which triggered more consumption of them. Today the market is big and makes a meaningful difference. This the result of individual action without coordination by all market participants.

I don't make a claim about the relative cost of individual change. I rather call the thinking that individual cost will only be accepted if everybody changes arrogant. I've heard more than I'd like to count sentences like "If I/we change, the others still continue, so the problem won't be solved", while in fact it will be solved to the degree that I/we are causing it. Demanding that everybody changes just because you change is arrogant.

I'm not saying individual costs are negligible compared to the influence one can have with individual change. There may be good reasons to not change.

Re: What you may have heard about the dispute between UC and Elsevier

#166

Post by asark » Wed, Aug 07, 2019, 5:43 PM UTC

madez wrote: post #165

asark wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that often changing your own behavior hurts you more than it works to effect change, unless lots of others also spontaneously jump onboard. Which, more or less certainly, they won't, so you're basically just self-flagellating in a closet, which might make you feel morally pure but isn't doing anything to change the world. This is a pretty well-studied part of political science (and probably is covered…

> Which, more or less certainly, they won't, so you're basically just self-flagellating in a closet, which might make you feel morally pure but isn't doing anything to change the world. I think you are factually wrong and condecending in the way you express it. One case I can bring is the vegan product market in Germany. For many years, individuals were "self-flagellating in a closet" and simply avoiding animals prod…

Well, I'm just coming at it from the perspective of observed efficacy in the real world. It's fine in a Kantian moral sense or whatever, if your goal is personal ethical edification. If your goal is to make things better it's a poor tool to rely on.

The problem's not so much that they can fail—any method can—as that they can fail with anything short of overwhelming and sustained support, that is, they can be wildly popular and still have no long-term effect at all. Better to look elsewhere—no amount of "if we'd all just do it, we could fix this!" will change that.

Again, as a personal choice, fine. As an alternative to more-effective means, no. It's not "arrogant", it's an outcome-focussed stance fitting with observed reality and current scholarship.

[EDIT] "They" being "movements mostly based on changes in personal behavior patterns, at some significant personal cost or risk"

Re: What you may have heard about the dispute between UC and Elsevier

#167

Post by madez » Wed, Aug 07, 2019, 5:51 PM UTC

asark wrote: post #166

madez wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Which, more or less certainly, they won't, so you're basically just self-flagellating in a closet, which might make you feel morally pure but isn't doing anything to change the world. I think you are factually wrong and condecending in the way you express it. One case I can bring is the vegan product market in Germany. For many years, individuals were "self-flagellating in a closet" and simply avoiding animals prod…

Well, I'm just coming at it from the perspective of observed efficacy in the real world. It's fine in a Kantian moral sense or whatever, if your goal is personal ethical edification. If your goal is to make things better it's a poor tool to rely on. The problem's not so much that they can fail—any method can—as that they can fail with anything short of overwhelming and sustained support, that is, they can be wildly p…

I do not advocate individual change as a tool to rely on to solve problems, so this is a straw man. That would disregard other effective and efficient ways to approach problems. I also don't think it's about "personal ethical edification". That is again a rather condescending spin you are giving to it.

My point is about recognizing the individual influence one has. Often that is avoided by the statement I'm criticizing.

Re: What you may have heard about the dispute between UC and Elsevier

#168

Post by asark » Wed, Aug 07, 2019, 6:09 PM UTC

madez wrote: post #167

asark wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I'm just coming at it from the perspective of observed efficacy in the real world. It's fine in a Kantian moral sense or whatever, if your goal is personal ethical edification. If your goal is to make things better it's a poor tool to rely on. The problem's not so much that they can fail—any method can—as that they can fail with anything short of overwhelming and sustained support, that is, they can be wildly p…

I do not advocate individual change as a tool to rely on to solve problems, so this is a straw man. That would disregard other effective and efficient ways to approach problems. I also don't think it's about "personal ethical edification". That is again a rather condescending spin you are giving to it. My point is about recognizing the individual influence one has. Often that is avoided by the statement I'm criticizi…

> My point is about recognizing the individual influence one has

How is that not essentially zero, in most political circumstances and for non-extraordinary individuals? That's my point.

[EDIT] and further:

> That is again a rather condescending spin you are giving to it.

I think I'm giving it a pretty fair shake by acknowledging there's any laudable purpose to actions of personal behavioral choice on large political problems. There is, but it has little to do with effecting change, if that's the part that's important.

Re: What you may have heard about the dispute between UC and Elsevier

#169

Post by madez » Wed, Aug 07, 2019, 6:32 PM UTC

asark wrote: post #168

madez wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not advocate individual change as a tool to rely on to solve problems, so this is a straw man. That would disregard other effective and efficient ways to approach problems. I also don't think it's about "personal ethical edification". That is again a rather condescending spin you are giving to it. My point is about recognizing the individual influence one has. Often that is avoided by the statement I'm criticizi…

> My point is about recognizing the individual influence one has How is that not essentially zero, in most political circumstances and for non-extraordinary individuals? That's my point. [EDIT] and further: > That is again a rather condescending spin you are giving to it. I think I'm giving it a pretty fair shake by acknowledging there's any laudable purpose to actions of personal behavioral choice on large political…

We are one in many. That means we just share the influence. Many issues are not binary, and often the individual contribution to a problem can be canceled out completely by individual change. The influence may be small compared to the sum of all, but still the responsibility for the individual contribution lays completely with the individual. The comparison must be between the individual cost and the individual contribution to the problem and it's solution, not falsely to the complete problem on the scale of the society.

Even when the problem is binary, the argumentative position becomes much stronger by individual change. For example, if Europe became fully carbon neutral, it's stance would be much more powerful when it comes to these questions compared to if it continued to build new coal power plants and told other countries to stop doing that.

Re: What you may have heard about the dispute between UC and Elsevier

#170

Post by IfOnlyYouKnew » Wed, Aug 07, 2019, 6:33 PM UTC

geofft wrote: post #105

IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what's Linux market share for desktops these days?

About 40%, because if you're comparing relative to the early 2000s, mobile devices are now filling the role that only desktops filled them. Drawing a distinction makes about as much sense as distinguishing desktops and laptops. Plus, given that when folks like Darl McBride said "He can't have written an entire OS" they were clearly not thinking about just the Linux kernel, I think there's a solid argument for countin…

Wow, that comment was misunderstood... I use Linux, don't use Windows, and still think it's obvious that there is a certain feature set, i. e. the classic consumer desktop, that the community tried and failed to compete for. Of course Linux is a perfectly fine OS, but it again took a commercial effort (Android) to reach mainstream adoption on mobile.

Please read this in the context of the analogy: the OS is the science, the UI is typesetting/distribution/etc.