Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

MIT leaders describe the experience of not renewing Elsevier contract

sparcopen.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 230 posts

Re: MIT leaders describe the experience of not renewing Elsevier contract

#161

Post by Kinrany »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #158
maeil wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the face of it, this sounds like a modern-capitalism take that reduces to "People don't actually have principles, they only care about money". Which is probably correct in 95% of modern business transactions. But surely a skilled negotiator should be able to tell when they're dealing with a party for whom this assumption does not hold. That's one of the main things that being a skilled negotiator is about; the abi…

> modern-capitalism take that reduces to "People don't actually have principles, they only care about money" 1 This is not a modern-capitalism take, maybe just a modern-capitalism phrasing. If you read "money" as common unit of value (which it is), not just dollars in hand specifically, then the statement is effectively true for 99%+ of people; the few for which it doesn't hold are considered insane [0], and we try t…

The carrot and the stick cannot increase indefinitely. It doesn't matter how much money you lose once it's more than everything you have, and it doesn't matter how much you gain if it's enough to get everything you want except for what you're trading away.

Re: MIT leaders describe the experience of not renewing Elsevier contract

#162

Post by DoctorOetker »

MarkusQ wrote: post #2

Aaron Swartz would have liked some of those principles. This is a small, "better late than never" step for most of us, but for Aaron...it's more like "too little, too late."

I consider it a lot more obscene, MIT doesn't go after all the megacorps that are training ML algorithms on research articles because they feel small in comparison, but if a kid borrows too many articles, or in too quick a succession, they had no problem squashing him like a bug.

Its the same behavior you seen in frustrated adolescents that feel to small to retaliate against the perpetrators of their misfortune and "start small" by torturing smaller animals...

Re: MIT leaders describe the experience of not renewing Elsevier contract

#163

Post by DoctorOetker »

mullingitover wrote: post #78

I wonder how far California could go on its own in destroying the journal cartels. They really are a parasitic racket, and I don't think the average voter understand how bad it really is. I feel like one basic ballot measure to the effect of "All state funded research shall be released to the public domain, and all prior contract terms to the contrary are hereby void" might be enough to knock over the first domino, h…

followed by regulation taxing the sale of empty digital rewritable media, with that money exclusively used to reward the sale of digital rewritable media if it provably contains a randomly selected subset of all research articles.

If a user doesn't want it, they can format the drive, or filter by subject, and get any missing articles for a subject domain from friends/whomever, but preferably first share articles with interested peers before overwriting them.

This will make the hoi polloi understand the problem, and prevent them from forgetting the lesson.

Re: MIT leaders describe the experience of not renewing Elsevier contract

#164

Post by robertlagrant »

echelon wrote: post #117
mncharity wrote: post #69

Some random bits of context. This conflict goes back a long time. In the early 1990's, with online journals just getting started, MIT was able to insist on principles like "anyone physically in the library has full access, even if they are not otherwise affiliated with MIT". A couple of years later, power shifted, and Elsevier could "our terms, take it or leave it". Then three decades, a human generation, of Elsevier…

> "our terms, take it or leave it". So many monopolies do this and they should all be disrupted. This is our world, and anyone telling us they get to gatekeep information exchange is not an ally. Google with Chrome, Apple with iPhone. > Societal change can be so very slow, nonmonotonic, and profoundly discouraging. And yet here we are, making progress. Encouraging, but we lost Aaron.

> This is our world, and anyone telling us they get to gatekeep information exchange is not an ally

Sorry, but this is a worldview that universally leads to nastiness. It's everyone's world, and just as I don't have the right to sleep in your bed (even though it's "our" world and who are you to stop "us"?) we have to have a non-low resolution and non-tribal view of situations.

There is a way to think about this that clears that very low bar, and so this level of discourse is not necessary.

Re: MIT leaders describe the experience of not renewing Elsevier contract

#165

Post by admdly »

duskwuff wrote: post #139
admdly wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not specifically aimed at MIT, but wouldn’t such a large unspent endowment not (at least casually) suggest a failure to invest in research / students / etc.

Not in the slightest. An academic endowment isn't meant to be spent; the university holds the principal of the endowment and spends from the returns.

It does indeed look like they’re spending the returns, rather than just sitting on an ever increasing principal which I initially suspected.

Re: MIT leaders describe the experience of not renewing Elsevier contract

#166

Post by nprateem »

mlhpdx wrote: post #19

> MIT presented its principles to the publisher’s representatives as the basis for new contract negotiations. This is an incredibly important and powerful strategy, as a customer or a vendor. When everything is negotiable, trouble follows. The instant gratification of a "win" doesn't help move an organization forward. Having and sticking to principles does, with practical benefits. Trust grows and culture improves. C…

The important part was sticking to them and not just using them as a feeble bargaining chip.

Negotiations always come down to strength of need and best alternatives.

It seems Elsevier overplayed their hand. They could have given in, but then everyone would demand the same.

They probably assume it'll take other unis years to be able to get rid of them, so it's better to keep milking them for now. Once enough leave, they'll change their tunes though (by which time it may be too late).

Re: MIT leaders describe the experience of not renewing Elsevier contract

#167

Post by amadeuspagel »

adelmotsjr wrote: post #60
mywittyname wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Network effect. "Everyone" subscribed to Elsevier, so if you wanted your papers to get visibility and citations, you tried to get it published in their journals. They are a relic of a bygone era. They made sense when journals were physical publications in the library. Elsevier was the one-stop-shop for all of the major academic journals. But with the internet, they make less sense and kept their position through iner…

I think the issue is more than that though, because if the physical aspect were only the barrier, they should have disappeared by the time the Internet came along. I think (and this is only my honest, outsider perspective) that the issue is, and always was, about trust. As in: who is this dude publishing this paper about high-energy particle physics? I don't know him, so I don't trust him. But I do know about Science…

A certain trust is necessary even to invest the effort to understand a paper.

Re: MIT leaders describe the experience of not renewing Elsevier contract

#168

Post by neves »

robertlagrant wrote: post #164
echelon wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "our terms, take it or leave it". So many monopolies do this and they should all be disrupted. This is our world, and anyone telling us they get to gatekeep information exchange is not an ally. Google with Chrome, Apple with iPhone. > Societal change can be so very slow, nonmonotonic, and profoundly discouraging. And yet here we are, making progress. Encouraging, but we lost Aaron.

> This is our world, and anyone telling us they get to gatekeep information exchange is not an ally Sorry, but this is a worldview that universally leads to nastiness. It's everyone's world, and just as I don't have the right to sleep in your bed (even though it's "our" world and who are you to stop "us"?) we have to have a non-low resolution and non-tribal view of situations. There is a way to think about this that…

It's really interesting when people doesn't notice that the view of "copyright=pepper" is pure ideology.

Re: MIT leaders describe the experience of not renewing Elsevier contract

#169

Post by amadeuspagel »

lupire wrote: post #131
tiahura wrote: post #13

Why not adopt the law school approach? Let the grad students publish the journals.

Legal academic scholarships is much small and less relevant than science scholarship. The legal publishing that matters is done by the government -- courts and legislatures.

Courts are influenced by academic scholarship.

Re: MIT leaders describe the experience of not renewing Elsevier contract

#170

Post by amadeuspagel »

stackedinserter wrote: post #7

US universities could create enough pressure on Elsevier to make them seriously reconsider their practices.

They certainly can't coordinate to create pressure on Elsevier without violating antitrust law.
Post reply on HN