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

EU Announces That All Scientific Articles Should Be Freely Accessible by 2020

futurism.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 143 posts

Re: EU Announces That All Scientific Articles Should Be Freely Accessible by 2020

#101

Post by kaeluka »

foota wrote: post #98
red_admiral wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Publisher-hosted open access is a scam. Here in the UK we already have an open-access requirement for RCUK and EPSRC grants, but it can be met by uploading a preprint to an institution- or subject-specific repository (such as arXiv) and including a link to it in your report back to the grant sponsor. Last time I published in a journal, I got a "special offer" of $1200 instead of $2000 to make it open access. I polite…

This makes me feel stupid, but people get paid when they publish in journals?

That's the price journals ask to make a paper open access.

Edit: oh my, three+ comments at the same time.

Re: EU Announces That All Scientific Articles Should Be Freely Accessible by 2020

#102

Post by thr0waway1239 »

marcosdumay wrote: post #93
thr0waway1239 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cost of the review process in this particular two sided marketplace (which publishing is - how do you decide which journal to send your paper to?) is not just the unpaid labor of the reviewers, but rather the establishment of the credentials and authority which the journals build up over time, which basically drove down the cost of reviewing to be much smaller than if it were simply a free for all. To see this in…

There's not much credential setting. I was getting proposals for reviewing papers shortly after my first one published, and honestly, it wasn't an incredibly nice one that could make me a name. Publishers just coast on their current name, and are in a winner takes all market where the best authors will try to publish at the most famous journals. They are purely rent seekers, and won't go out without some external int…

I believe we both agree. However, when evaluating the costs of the mediating entities such as Elsevier the assumption is that you will be starting from scratch if those entities were to disappear tomorrow, and you will not simply be usurping their brand names/prestige/authority etc. The publishers may be coasting today on their current names - but note the comment in an adjacent thread [1] which talks about new publications and their general challenges - there was a real effort at some point to build up a name they can coast on, and that cost was probably not trivial.

In fact, even though I started the Elsevier bashing in this thread :-) - until we find out what the replacement system looks like I think we may not even completely see all the costs involved. I don't think the existence of the internet is suddenly going to turn the research publication process into a very resource efficient system.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12436924

Re: EU Announces That All Scientific Articles Should Be Freely Accessible by 2020

#104

Post by JohnStrange »

faragon wrote: post #97

Why are not already free? Most EU scientific institutions take tons of public money (even private scientific institutions).

Because the journals held by a few global players (Elsevier, Springer, Oxford Journals) are the most prestigious ones, and a researcher's career and funding hinges almost solely on the number of his publications/year in prestigious journals.

Re: EU Announces That All Scientific Articles Should Be Freely Accessible by 2020

#105

Post by JohnStrange »

snvzz wrote: post #88

Why wait until 2020? This should be effective today, while giving a few month grace period at most.

And who protects the researchers?

The same people who demand this open access also advocate research evaluation criteria that mostly count the number of publications in top journals owned by Springer, Elsevier, etc.

Re: EU Announces That All Scientific Articles Should Be Freely Accessible by 2020

#106

Post by JohnStrange »

zakk wrote: post #51

That's incredibly stupid. The publishing of scientific papers has a cost, in terms of editorial service, proofreading, typesetting. This cost will be paid by scientists, rather than by the readers. In other words, the papers will be free to read, but won't be free to publish. I know as a fact that smaller research groups struggle to pay current publishing fees, and as a matter of fact the EU decision will increase th…

Sorry, perhaps this differs from field to field but at least in mine what you say is patently false.

Journals have no linguistic editing, no proofreading, and the typesetting is outsourced to India - at least Springer does so, as I know from personal interaction with the typesetters. Articles must be delivered more or less camera-ready according to the journal style. Editorial boards and all editors, as well as as reviewers work for free.

If you have a research group that actually pays for being published, then that's called "grey literature" or even worse, just plain self-publication, and it's worth nothing. It can even have a negative impact on your CV.

Re: EU Announces That All Scientific Articles Should Be Freely Accessible by 2020

#107

Post by marcosdumay »

thr0waway1239 wrote: post #102
marcosdumay wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's not much credential setting. I was getting proposals for reviewing papers shortly after my first one published, and honestly, it wasn't an incredibly nice one that could make me a name. Publishers just coast on their current name, and are in a winner takes all market where the best authors will try to publish at the most famous journals. They are purely rent seekers, and won't go out without some external int…

I believe we both agree. However, when evaluating the costs of the mediating entities such as Elsevier the assumption is that you will be starting from scratch if those entities were to disappear tomorrow, and you will not simply be usurping their brand names/prestige/authority etc. The publishers may be coasting today on their current names - but note the comment in an adjacent thread [1] which talks about new publi…

The rent they are coasting on is dictated by government and NGO bureaucracy. Until universities and grant distributors stop judging researchers mainly by the amount they publish on Elsevier journals, no newer publication will become prestigious. In fact, a few years ago I was doubting newer publication would ever get as far as they did.

Besides, research publication does have hight costs. But nearly all of that cost is not beared by publishers.

Re: EU Announces That All Scientific Articles Should Be Freely Accessible by 2020

#108

Post by stcredzero »

Some studies have concluded that there is now more social mobility in Europe than in the US. Now I see more and more "bellwether" laws and executive actions coming from Europe first. Does this mean that the US, being at the top of the hierarchy and in charge of the world's largest empire, has now ceded innovation to the up and coming powers, much as Britain did to the United States in the 19th and 20th century?

Re: EU Announces That All Scientific Articles Should Be Freely Accessible by 2020

#109

Post by paulddraper »

dublinben wrote: post #99
foota wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This makes me feel stupid, but people get paid when they publish in journals?

No. The "special offer" was for the publication fee. Major publishers have decided that they can charge extra for open access papers.

They charge extra, because making it open-access prevents them from charging readers as they would normally do.

Re: EU Announces That All Scientific Articles Should Be Freely Accessible by 2020

#110

Post by paulddraper »

stcredzero wrote: post #108

Some studies have concluded that there is now more social mobility in Europe than in the US. Now I see more and more "bellwether" laws and executive actions coming from Europe first. Does this mean that the US, being at the top of the hierarchy and in charge of the world's largest empire, has now ceded innovation to the up and coming powers, much as Britain did to the United States in the 19th and 20th century?

First in line to Disneyland, or first in line at the suicide booth?

Direction is as important as order, so a criticism of "not first" must be more nuanced.

Post reply on HN