Live data from Hacker News

UC’s termination of Elsevier contract has had limited negative impact (2020)

dailybruin.com

11–20 of 93 posts

Re: UC’s termination of Elsevier contract has had limited negative impact (2020)

#11
I hope they find a long term archival approach for the literature that’s no longer being paid for.

In CS, there was a transition from older journals to newer publishers around 1980, and much of the literature prior to that is simply inaccessible.

Re: UC’s termination of Elsevier contract has had limited negative impact (2020)

#14
At a semantic web meeting sometime back one of the heads of Elsevier reasearch during her talk blatantly stated that "Elsevier is not a publishing company", I noticed numerous heads raise at this comment. Elsevier sells services. They no longer need to publish, or worry about losing their publishing, because the big journals like Cell etc. are not going anywhere, and because they control enough of the published information that they can do other things.

They also know that their knowledge-base is worth massive $, they sell medical diagnostic tools, text etc. [0]. It doesn't take a Cellular Biologist to connect the dots to notice the huge potential conflict of interest. Controls publishing (on medical topics), sells diagnostics, $ for all this. I'd bet money they own insurance companies. Is it malicious? Who knows. Is it obvious that it could be abused, with certainty.

[0]:https://evolve.elsevier.com/education/medical-insurance-bill...

Re: UC’s termination of Elsevier contract has had limited negative impact (2020)

#15

Let’s ask scihub to tell us how much traffic they get from uc*.edu ip addresses

You would have to get a 10 years before / after comparison for it to prove anything. Also, comparing a university against itself is interesting but not at all noteworthy, for bonus points to make the paper actually useful, you could compare against 10 years of traffic from other universities.

But then, Science magazine did a segment on this: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/04/whos-downloading-pir...

Re: UC’s termination of Elsevier contract has had limited negative impact (2020)

#16
post #4

This brings an interesting anecdote from when I suddenly had this question of how my seniors working in the 80s and 90s in a small Indian lab managed to get the literature they want (when their small lab was still one of the most advanced institutions in the state). My senior said they’d pretty much have to write up a literature request letter, attach a cheque and mail it to the main library in New Delhi, and they wo…

> Just like Wikipedia and the internet didn’t change everyone’s ability to know things in any meaningful way

What are you talking about? Wikipedia substantially changed everyone's ability to know things.

In fact, Wikipedia was so good at increasing everyone's ability to know things, I wonder if we're now having to build back a way to synthesize and ponder our desired context for all those things. That problem may be exaggerated due to unregulated app casinos sucking out any surplus time to reflect and wonder, but I think the problem is definitely there either way.

Re: UC’s termination of Elsevier contract has had limited negative impact (2020)

#17
post #4

This brings an interesting anecdote from when I suddenly had this question of how my seniors working in the 80s and 90s in a small Indian lab managed to get the literature they want (when their small lab was still one of the most advanced institutions in the state). My senior said they’d pretty much have to write up a literature request letter, attach a cheque and mail it to the main library in New Delhi, and they wo…

> free access to arbitrary literature was not exactly the limiting step in anyone’s research career in my experience.

What are limiting steps?

Re: UC’s termination of Elsevier contract has had limited negative impact (2020)

#18
post #11

I hope they find a long term archival approach for the literature that’s no longer being paid for. In CS, there was a transition from older journals to newer publishers around 1980, and much of the literature prior to that is simply inaccessible.

Scientific papers should have more limited copyright protections around distribution. No one except journals benefits from the current situation, and the service they provide around connecting submissions with reviewers seems ripe for replacement if any institution lends their credibility to the matter.

Re: UC’s termination of Elsevier contract has had limited negative impact (2020)

#19
post #4

This brings an interesting anecdote from when I suddenly had this question of how my seniors working in the 80s and 90s in a small Indian lab managed to get the literature they want (when their small lab was still one of the most advanced institutions in the state). My senior said they’d pretty much have to write up a literature request letter, attach a cheque and mail it to the main library in New Delhi, and they wo…

> Just like Wikipedia and the internet didn’t change everyone’s ability to know things in any meaningful way What are you talking about? Wikipedia substantially changed everyone's ability to know things. In fact, Wikipedia was so good at increasing everyone's ability to know things, I wonder if we're now having to build back a way to synthesize and ponder our desired context for all those things. That problem may be…

My biggest criticism of Wikipedia is that it refuses to publish anything that isn't supported by a dead tree publication, like the ones Elsevier publishes for a fortune. You could be a prominent, highly respected full professor, but unless your research paper has made it into one of these publications, and actually gone out the door, your research won't be included in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is great for the kind of stuff that used to be published in print encyclopedias, but if you want to find out about cutting edge research, arXiv.org is a better source.

Re: UC’s termination of Elsevier contract has had limited negative impact (2020)

#20
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Just like Wikipedia and the internet didn’t change everyone’s ability to know things in any meaningful way What are you talking about? Wikipedia substantially changed everyone's ability to know things. In fact, Wikipedia was so good at increasing everyone's ability to know things, I wonder if we're now having to build back a way to synthesize and ponder our desired context for all those things. That problem may be…

My biggest criticism of Wikipedia is that it refuses to publish anything that isn't supported by a dead tree publication, like the ones Elsevier publishes for a fortune. You could be a prominent, highly respected full professor, but unless your research paper has made it into one of these publications, and actually gone out the door, your research won't be included in Wikipedia. Wikipedia is great for the kind of stu…

Maybe the wider adoption of arXiv in other fields (taking off in biology right now) will lead to wiki's acceptance of these sources?
Post reply on HN