Live data from Hacker News

Gates Foundation to require immediate free access for journal articles

news.sciencemag.org

141–150 of 154 posts

Re: Gates Foundation to require immediate free access for journal articles

#141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikipedia is notoriously poor on science, particularly cutting edge. That's the wrong model.

That's surprising, since their math and CS stuff is usually pretty good.

Wikipedia - and encyclopedias in general - are good sources for established works, not the cutting edge. I think this applies to computer science as well. The CS material on Wikipedia that you would expect to find in an undergrad curriculum is excellent. But the treatment for the research areas I am familiar with is not good. That, however, is to be expected - we're still figuring it out!

Re: Gates Foundation to require immediate free access for journal articles

#142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Little trick: You can access every can't-access article by posting it to http://www.reddit.com/r/scholar and waiting a couple hours for someone with subscription access to go fetch it for you. This is also a deliciously fun debate, because it calls into question our most fundamental assumptions about the idea of "illegal." For example, is Reddit facilitating illegal activity due to that subreddit? Should anything be…

This is the single best tip I've read about anything in the past six months[1]. Here's why: In 2012, I graduated from dental school in debt up to my EYEBALLS[2], and look, I can NOT afford the per article fee required for me to form my own opinions on important dental topics like implantology, oral surgery, adhesive bonding, high strength porcelains. I've had to rely on reading literally tens of thousands of forum po…

> I did, however, receive a letter asking me to donate $1,250 to the School on the occasion of their 125th anniversary. That made me just a little bit upset.

I so hope you replied enclosing your previous correspondence as your reason to decline.

Re: Gates Foundation to require immediate free access for journal articles

#143
post #113
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To me, $1000 per article sounds insanely low. PLoS is a non-profit founded for the purpose of publishing open-access journals. They charge between $1350 and $2900, depending on the journal, and only one journal is less than $2200. Another open-access publisher, BMC charges over $1900 for most of its journals. Do you think that PLoS and BMC are very inefficient? Are there _any_ large-scale open-access publishers that…

First I would like to show the fallacy of your reasoning: we're discussing the unreasonableness of the current price of APCs for open access publications, and you are justifying its reasonableness by giving the current prices. Now I think you are thinking about this the wrong way. Nobody is denying that publication has a cost. But take all the money that universities around the world spend in subscriptions, add all t…

I agree with you that incumbent commercial publishers are sucking up a lot of money that could be better spent elsewhere. Where I disagree is on the specific numbers. It's not about the publishing platform or physical printing but the administration of journal's operations. The editorial board and the referees work for "free" (which actually means paid for by someone else, usually universities), but the management and administration does not.

I point to PLoS as essentially the model you're asking for. It's a non-profit publisher started by open-access advocates working as researchers. There are no investors making a profit and they're mission is to spread open-access as a model, and they end up charging $2200+ per article for most of their journals. If that's the number they came up with, then I'm led to believe that that's what it costs to publish a journal, at least in the biosciences. As I said, there are small journals that operate for free, but if you look at large-scale open-access operations, started by idealists, I don't think you're going to find any that sustainably gets by with article charges less than around $1500.

For comparison, when I looked at Elsevier's finances, it seemed that they're charging roughly $5000 per article and half of that goes to their operations and half is profit. So their costs are roughly the same as PLoS, but they charge twice as much in order to make a substantial profit.

As for why I felt the need to correct you, I think it's because I think in general people ignore the real monetary costs associated with open-access publishing. I believe that author-pays open-access is the way of the future, but getting there will mean that researchers will have to find ways to pay these fees when they haven't had to pay before. In principle, this just involves redirecting money from subscriptions to pay author charges and there'd even be money left over, but actually performing that switch across thousands of institutions is not simple. Too often I run into the attitude that for-profit publishing is charging money for a trivial job, and so people wonder why it hasn't been replaced. However, the truth is that they're performing an important and real task with real costs, while also over-charging for it, and that's not going to be replaced overnight.

Re: Gates Foundation to require immediate free access for journal articles

#144
post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Little trick: You can access every can't-access article by posting it to http://www.reddit.com/r/scholar and waiting a couple hours for someone with subscription access to go fetch it for you. This is also a deliciously fun debate, because it calls into question our most fundamental assumptions about the idea of "illegal." For example, is Reddit facilitating illegal activity due to that subreddit? Should anything be…

Thanks for the link. This resource has saved my hide more than once during my time as a university student. Also, to anyone with access to scientific literature: We welcome you to "pay it forward" and fulfill some requests on /r/scholar " rel="nofollow">https://reddit.com/r/scholar>/r/scholar yourself.

This particularly applies to those with access to stuff not on JSTOR, which often doesn't get the typical two-hour turnaround of /r/scholar.

Re: Gates Foundation to require immediate free access for journal articles

#145

This got me wondering: What am I missing by not being in the habit of reading research papers? I remember being in college and finding nearly every paper I wanted to reference was behind a paywall, to the point that I lost all interest in even trying to gain access. I'm sure my own laziness plays a role, but I feel like the restricted access trained me to think research papers are for academics and scientists and it'…

I find that the practice of reading any given stream of data without some directed filtering on my own part is relatively low. But once you do find a specific topic of interest, the ability to go directly to high-grade, quality sources on that topic is hugely useful. I've been pursuing just such a research project over the past several years, and tools such as /r/scholar and Library Genesis (as well as traditional bo…

It's not ironic. Sharing freely is part of the free market. Price points of zero are not disbarred.

Re: Gates Foundation to require immediate free access for journal articles

#146
post #34
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be an interesting experiment to negotiate a single annual payment to all journals to make them publish all articles in an easily downloadable and extractable form.

I guess the publishers would not accept any payment less than their current (very large) profits, so you'd basically be locking in those profits and the system wouldn't get any cheaper.

I think they'd accept a smaller payment (and I'm guessing like you). if you could guarantee them a fixed profit, without the need to compete, advertise, print things, etc, that's just easier.

The idea would be to negotiate terms that are favorable (enabling more scientific research and public access to funded research).

Re: Gates Foundation to require immediate free access for journal articles

#147
post #126
post #7

Bravo. It would be really neat if the US Government could get on the same bandwagon. Our tax dollars being used to fund research that we can't access is insane.

Your tax dollars are used to fund many, many things you can't access. Nor would your average tax payer get any value out of being able to access the research papers. This is not to say that the academic publishing isn't a complete mess. I get pissed off every time I have to sign away my copyright to a publisher, or spend a day reviewing a paper without compensation, while the publishers rake in hundreds of millions i…

> Your tax dollars are used to fund many, many things you can't access.

We're not talking about classified material here, it's research literally done so that others can learn.

> Nor would your average tax payer get any value out of being able to access the research papers.

Sure they would because it would allow more people who can get value out of them to do so, thus increasing the amount of knowledge for us all.

Re: Gates Foundation to require immediate free access for journal articles

#149
post #7

Bravo. It would be really neat if the US Government could get on the same bandwagon. Our tax dollars being used to fund research that we can't access is insane.

Little trick: You can access every can't-access article by posting it to http://www.reddit.com/r/scholar and waiting a couple hours for someone with subscription access to go fetch it for you. This is also a deliciously fun debate, because it calls into question our most fundamental assumptions about the idea of "illegal." For example, is Reddit facilitating illegal activity due to that subreddit? Should anything be…

> Surely that counts as harm in the eyes of the law?

It's not very well defined but the intention is clear. [Fiar Use] is concerned with the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; And the effect on the market. You could say that the effect on the market is positive because taking a fee for basically effortless distribution of educational material would be unethical, while the substantiality of the paper is such, that it couldn't be reduced to excerpts for the context in which it is used, to get the meaning across. But that's what fair use just about perfectly covers, quotes and such like, not reproduction.

Whether it really is unfair, that's for open access journals to disprove. They could argue monetary disadvantage to the point of monopolization. Although, splitting up a monopoly into many small companies would be detrimental to the collection, too. Anyhow, I'm not sure the advantage is only from price discrimination and hard driven business strategies or editorial edge or what-have-you.

[Fair Use] http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107

Re: Gates Foundation to require immediate free access for journal articles

#150
post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Little trick: You can access every can't-access article by posting it to http://www.reddit.com/r/scholar and waiting a couple hours for someone with subscription access to go fetch it for you. This is also a deliciously fun debate, because it calls into question our most fundamental assumptions about the idea of "illegal." For example, is Reddit facilitating illegal activity due to that subreddit? Should anything be…

> the market value of the article would drop to zero The articles have intrinsic scientific value that's even greater when they are being read.

That is it, I was trying to say that in a GP, but it turned out less apt.
Post reply on HN