I don't get it at all why to use a pre-print servers?
Don't Publish with IEEE (2005)
21–30 of 97 posts
Re: Don't Publish with IEEE (2005)
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't get it. Why use a preprint server associated with publishers, when publishers have the history they have? What's the difference with putting them on e.g. arxiv?
Arxiv has a narrow focus (only physics) and it's rather difficult to even get permission to publish there in the first place. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory runs BioRxiv and MedRxiv for biology and medicine, respectively, but again there's the issue of focus. Those are the big three. Then IEEE started TechRxiv as a preprint server for tech/engineering, which, given the landscape at the time, was a good move.
Arxiv isn't just Physics at all, historically it's always been a big place for Maths and CS too.
Re: Don't Publish with IEEE (2005)
#23Not only is that link really old, the IEEE has their own preprint server now, TechRxiv: https://innovate.ieee.org/techrxiv_launch/ Everybody should use preprint servers, and TechRxiv deserves more love and attention than it gets.
I'll go try to answer these for myself, but — using the "both things can be true" argument — I have a couple if follow-up questions: 1. Do they still require transfer of copyright to IEEE? 2. Or, conversely, do they publish public domain articles?
1. No. "TechRxiv offers several Creative Commons licenses, all of which permit you to retain copyright of your work. You do not need to transfer your copyright to TechRxiv."
2. Preprint servers aren't really for the publication of articles that were already published elsewhere. But you can have an article published on TechRxiv peer-reviewed and subsequently published in an IEEE journal -- or a non-IEEE journal, for that matter.
Re: Don't Publish with IEEE (2005)
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
Last-Modified: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 04:40:39 GMT
If only browsers cared about making useful infomation available.
To be fair, the Last-Modified header is very sketchy. I use it as one of the heuristics for determining the age of a website in my search engine. It's not great.
It's frequently found incorrect, both older and younger than the actual age of the document. It's a bit of a relic from back in ye olden days when websites were static .htm files in a folder, which is so rarely the case today.
It doesn't help it's also got overloaded uses via If-Modified-Since -style conditional requests.
Re: Don't Publish with IEEE (2005)
#25[flagged]
Unfortunately this is exactly what came to mind seeing the level of non response to the level of question. Someone on the other end was ill equipped to fill their role well.
Either through lack of time, skill, training or ability. I'll be optimistic and think the former but suspect one of the latter.
Re: Don't Publish with IEEE (2005)
#26Publishing in Academia is a scam. Nowadays everyone puts their papers also on arxiv.org so at least we can read each other's papers for free. While of course still paying the fees to these publishers who are doing nothing but messing up the PDF (I have to fight them to fix the mistakes they add every time a paper is published), while claiming to do a value-add, which happens to add value to nobody but their own pocke…
> which happens to add value to nobody but their own pockets.
While publishers as they exist now are not necessary for this, the publishing process does typically incorporate peer review which has significant value. I agree that things need to change, but I don't think it's true that zero value is added by publishers.
Re: Don't Publish with IEEE (2005)
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
Arxiv has a narrow focus (only physics) and it's rather difficult to even get permission to publish there in the first place. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory runs BioRxiv and MedRxiv for biology and medicine, respectively, but again there's the issue of focus. Those are the big three. Then IEEE started TechRxiv as a preprint server for tech/engineering, which, given the landscape at the time, was a good move.
Arxiv isn't just Physics at all, historically it's always been a big place for Maths and CS too.
Yeah, that's very true.
Re: Don't Publish with IEEE (2005)
#28What we need is: 1. make science self-publishing using decentralised protocols the default 2. redefine traditional journals and publishers as curators or labellers on top of the network, instead of owners
Before you do either of those you need to convince academia that publishing in traditional journals/"prestige" legacy journals does not matter as much to the job. The entire system has Goodhart's Law-ed themselves into a trap connecting tenure to a very specific kind of publishing. Until that changes everything else will just get ignored.
Re: Don't Publish with IEEE (2005)
#29Publishing in Academia is a scam. Nowadays everyone puts their papers also on arxiv.org so at least we can read each other's papers for free. While of course still paying the fees to these publishers who are doing nothing but messing up the PDF (I have to fight them to fix the mistakes they add every time a paper is published), while claiming to do a value-add, which happens to add value to nobody but their own pocke…
> which happens to add value to nobody but their own pockets. While publishers as they exist now are not necessary for this, the publishing process does typically incorporate peer review which has significant value. I agree that things need to change, but I don't think it's true that zero value is added by publishers.
In many fields, particularly those that rely on conferences over journals, peer review is organized by others, not the publisher. So here they are truly doing nothing but hosting the papers behind their pay wall.
Re: Don't Publish with IEEE (2005)
#30Publishing in Academia is a scam. Nowadays everyone puts their papers also on arxiv.org so at least we can read each other's papers for free. While of course still paying the fees to these publishers who are doing nothing but messing up the PDF (I have to fight them to fix the mistakes they add every time a paper is published), while claiming to do a value-add, which happens to add value to nobody but their own pocke…
> which happens to add value to nobody but their own pockets. While publishers as they exist now are not necessary for this, the publishing process does typically incorporate peer review which has significant value. I agree that things need to change, but I don't think it's true that zero value is added by publishers.
Peer review is done for free by academics. The publisher does not contribute to peer review.