Live data from Hacker News

Walkout at global science journal over ‘unethical’ fees

theguardian.com

31–40 of 254 posts

Re: Walkout at global science journal over ‘unethical’ fees

#31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They also manage the review process (screen papers, find reviewers, communicate with authors and reviewers), make sure that papers are accessible long-term (decades to centuries), typeset manuscripts, print paper issues, and several other tasks. But yes, reviewers are not paid. A half-decent review can easily take 3-4 hours, and a typical paper gets 2-3 reviews, so something like 8-12 hours of PhD-level labor which a…

The only thing elsevier manages is their website. The review process is managed by academics who also work for free. Typesetting is done by authors. Paper printing is basically extinct.

Not true. Every (decent) journal has someone who goes through the typesetting process again is very time consuming. Whether that plus the review process, website maintenance etc it is worth £2,700 is a separate question.

Re: Walkout at global science journal over ‘unethical’ fees

#32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They also manage the review process (screen papers, find reviewers, communicate with authors and reviewers), make sure that papers are accessible long-term (decades to centuries), typeset manuscripts, print paper issues, and several other tasks. But yes, reviewers are not paid. A half-decent review can easily take 3-4 hours, and a typical paper gets 2-3 reviews, so something like 8-12 hours of PhD-level labor which a…

A half-decent review is not a proper review. Just the fact you are saying it like that is basically accepting that nobody is doing proper reviews.

You'll be surprised how many scientific papers published in reputable journals are not "properly reviewed". In many cases there simply isn't enough time or knowledge to go through every detail of a paper. One example -- if a paper says go to a github repository to look at our source code, guess how many people actually review the code as part of the peer review process? Very few. There could be serious bugs in the code that would affect the results, or maybe the code is difficult to set up and run, but nobody would notice them for a long time.

Re: Walkout at global science journal over ‘unethical’ fees

#33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that academics are evaluated based on the impact factor of the journal they publish in. If I submit a grant application and I have five papers in Nature, I will get the job. If I submit the application with five preprints on biorxiv, I might as well not have published those. It's like that all the way down - my last academic employer required me to publish a certain amount of papers per year in my nich…

Thanks for responding - I obviously don't have much idea of academia but this is seems like an area ripe for "disruption" (as much as I hate the tech-jargon). So if the core issue is being reviewed by respectable peers (the publication is mainly the easy to understand condensed outcome of that review), what is stopping the editors of a reputable journal to get together, tie-up with tech solutions and form their own e…

Ah but you see, it takes a few years before a new journal even has an impact factor, the sole number with which it is evaluated. To have a high impact factor means that other journals have cited your journal for years in high numbers.

It's a chicken & egg problem - you need a good decade for a journal to be come influential/high IF, but for that to happen you need people to submit their papers to your journal. And they won't do that if there's no or a low IF.... having good editors might help as they'll be able to choose or attract highly influential papers, but that's the least of your worries! Those papers will go to high-IF journals and there's little reason for those papers to go to your journal.

Re: Walkout at global science journal over ‘unethical’ fees

#34
Why do so many commenters on HN always sound so confident, yet none of them work in publishing?

First off, if the only publisher you have a problem with is Elsevier, you have already shown your hand. A half dozen other publishers are more expensive, but you can only name Elsevier. That means you're just repeating a meme that started on forums like this one. So take a moment and ask yourself why any of these publishers shouldn't take the same flak?

The "value" expensive publishers provide is clearly real, as customers are willing to pay for it. And there is clearly no monopoly; dozens of other publishers could make a similar journal at a lower price. Large publishers like Elsevier have thousands of journals, which isn't easy to replicate. But their profit is still in gold toilet territory. So why isn't a competitor able to take their business at lower profit? Answer: Prestige.

Louis Vouitton sells a handbag for $2k. Is it worth $2k? You could say no, that any other bag would be just as useful. But value isn't utility alone. People find that the bag is worth the price because of the prestige that the brand imbues the owner with.

Expensive publishers are still getting business because their customers still find value. Can you do it cheaper? Of course. Can you charge less profit? Of course. But will customers pay for it anyway? Of course. Because they're not paying for utility. They're paying for prestige.

Academic research is addicted to publishing in prestigious journals. Their entire system of grants and research positions is completely dependent on it. They simply have no alternative system. It's the industry dirty secret: prestigious journals are like coca cola with real coca leaf extract. You pay for it largely because you're dependent on it.

Of course, the customers complain about the price, so the question is, why not just buy something cheaper? Because that would defeat the whole point, which is to buy prestige. You can't just pay a kid in high school to run a web server for PDFs and say you have a prestigious journal. You have to have a brand that carries prestige, like that Louis Vouitton bag.

Until academic research no longer depends on prestige, no amount of walk-out stunts or individual universities walking out of deals will change anything. People still buy Louis Vouitton even though there are knockoffs. Because prestige is what they're buying, not a handbag.

Re: Walkout at global science journal over ‘unethical’ fees

#35

By watching the vintage TV show Miami Vice I learned that many people make a living out of selling an image (one of the cornerstones of Sonny Crockett's policing philosophy). TED comes to mind. Or WEF in Davos. They are all basically just marketing operations. (TED sells the hip/green young futurists and WEF plays the conspiracy angle.) Same with this science stuff here. Of course the professional scientists love the…

This is one case where it’s not just being hip though. Publishing in Nature Science Cell is pretty much a minimum requirement if you want to get tenure track in any top university. I’m out of academia by a few years so not sure if eLife/PLOS Biology is starting to make inroads as acceptable top tier or not. You’re also betting your long term reputation on the reputability of the journal. The best bet is that more of the top scientists commit to only publishing in fully open journals and bury NSC.

Re: Walkout at global science journal over ‘unethical’ fees

#36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only thing elsevier manages is their website. The review process is managed by academics who also work for free. Typesetting is done by authors. Paper printing is basically extinct.

Typesetting is done by authors (in some fields) and then completely redone by Elsevier staff. The value they add is questionable at best, but they certainly spend a lot of effort making the paper conform to their standards.

As far as I am aware, they don't necessarily even do the final editing themselves; at least with the APS journals, they outsource the final typesetting to another company.

Re: Walkout at global science journal over ‘unethical’ fees

#37

Why do so many commenters on HN always sound so confident, yet none of them work in publishing? First off, if the only publisher you have a problem with is Elsevier, you have already shown your hand. A half dozen other publishers are more expensive, but you can only name Elsevier. That means you're just repeating a meme that started on forums like this one. So take a moment and ask yourself why any of these publisher…

I like your point but let's dive another layer down the rabbithole.

Why do researchers need to buy prestige in the first place? Academic research should be done for the sake of advancement of knowledge and of course the people doing it should make a good living out of it. How does buying prestige come into play here? (just asking)

Re: Walkout at global science journal over ‘unethical’ fees

#38

You cannot really blame Elsevier here. They are just taking advantage of a dysfunctional academic system. The cost of reviewing a paper properly is high, but academia is not paying that cost by simply not doing a proper review. If the money saved by cutting Elsevier out (in this case £2700 per accepted paper) would actually be added to a pool out of which reviews are financed, I would see the point. But as it is, the…

If you’re gonna say you have to pay for reviews, it might be a bad precedent that might establish “professional reviewers” whose main job becomes this. Already reviewing papers is become a stupidly important criteria in green card applications and you see a huge deluge of postdocs emailing editors requesting papers to review (though the top journals will never give a manuscript to a postdoc).

Re: Walkout at global science journal over ‘unethical’ fees

#40

Why do so many commenters on HN always sound so confident, yet none of them work in publishing? First off, if the only publisher you have a problem with is Elsevier, you have already shown your hand. A half dozen other publishers are more expensive, but you can only name Elsevier. That means you're just repeating a meme that started on forums like this one. So take a moment and ask yourself why any of these publisher…

Terrence Tao once said he will not publish or edit for Elsevier. But he still said he will referee as scientists without tenure do not have that freedom.
Post reply on HN