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

Nature makes all articles free to view

nature.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 134 posts

Re: Nature makes all articles free to view

#121

Post by lomnakkus »

gergles wrote: post #62
chbrown wrote: post #60

My institution subscribes to Nature, and using my library's proxy to access the Nature website, I can use the "Share/bookmark" menu to generate links like http://rdcu.be/bKk4 , http://rdcu.be/bKlc , http://rdcu.be/bKld , and http://rdcu.be/bKli , which can be viewed in the browser (or maybe only because I also just installed the ReadCube app?). The articles linked to above span several months, but it's generating ser…

It is awful awful awful to show the "PDF download" button then go "Ha ha, no!" when you click it. Such a shitty UX.

Indeed. My options were

   1: "$3.99 rent,  $9.99 buy" (the was called the "ReadCube access" option)
   2: Purchase article full text and PDF: $8 (had no annotations, so presumably the "Nature" option)
In either case this is NOT "free". Nature, try again.

Re: Nature makes all articles free to view

#123

Post by ChuckMcM »

silencio wrote: post #84
therzathegza wrote: post #79

For those not in the know, Nature is THE journal to be in if you want to be successful in bioscience. It is peer reviewed, fairly exclusive, and they generally only publish game changer style science. If you are in science, and you get a first author Nature paper, your ticket is punched and you are about to have a moderately successful career. For all the nitpicking going on about the delivery method, searching, and…

There's pubmed search in the readcube app itself and it works fine. I don't see that as a concern. DRM is frustrating but not the big problem right now. What I have a problem with, and I think most of the comments here are along the same lines, is that they're calling this "free" when it's really "free if you get a link from someone with a subscription already". It's an improvement but barely. As a member of the publ…

I really see it as the sound of creaking in the timbers withstanding the force of a gale. (how is that for mixing metaphors!)

Basically the push is on for returning science results to the community, and the institutions that used to thrive on the challenge of getting published are being slowly eroded. In this process, and I've seen it before, the institutions start testing possible compromise solutions to avoid destruction. "What if we make it viewable in our app?" "What if one paper a month is free?" "What if you have to provide personally identifiable information which we can use for any purpose in exchange for us letting your read the paper?" it goes on and on.

We have to continue to keep up the pressure, not accept any compromise, and force these publishers to open up the archives for face dismantling.

Re: Nature makes all articles free to view

#124

Post by geographomics »

kruk wrote: post #23

I would love to get my hands on some of the articles from 1869. Hopefully someone will share a few of these articles publicly.

They're available here (as well as all the articles that are still copyrighted): http://libgen.org/scimag/?journalid=nature&v=1869&s=

Re: Nature makes all articles free to view

#125

Post by sre_ops »

31reasons wrote: post #48

" Nature's internal costs of publishing run at £20,000–30,000 (US$31,000–47,000) per paper, an extremely high charge to load onto authors or funders rather than spread over subscribers." What in the digital world would make it so expensive to publish content ?

Production

You know, copyediting, typesetting, proofreading, etc. What makes the garbage that originally shows up actually readable.

Re: Nature makes all articles free to view

#126

Post by hyperbovine »

therzathegza wrote: post #79

For those not in the know, Nature is THE journal to be in if you want to be successful in bioscience. It is peer reviewed, fairly exclusive, and they generally only publish game changer style science. If you are in science, and you get a first author Nature paper, your ticket is punched and you are about to have a moderately successful career. For all the nitpicking going on about the delivery method, searching, and…

The list of incredibly influential papers that got rejected from Nature and Science is long and growing. Conversely, a lot of papers in Nature or Science (particularly in bio) do not necessarily represent deep or groundbreaking ideas, though they are widely cited. It's particularly regrettable the hiring and tenure committees do indeed "punch your ticket" if you have one or two publications in high-profile journals, as this creates (imo) an unhealthy obsession with hyping everything you do into a "breakthrough" result worthy of publication in the top journals. Scientific breakthroughs are rare (increasingly so, it must be) and it has always seemed unlikely to me that there are enough of them per week to fill up three or four prestigious journals.

Re: Nature makes all articles free to view

#127

Post by dchichkov »

p4bl0 wrote: post #110
Retric wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While this sounds bad it's probably a sign of the amount of scrutiny Nature articles are under not the Quality of what's published. Basically, the rate of detection is higher in Nature so even if the underlying problem is the same or even less it’s going to look worse.

Indeed. I don't think anyone is saying that the high retractation rate implies that Nature paper are worse than other papers. However it is a sign that they may not be that much better either.

I would expect that the resulting quality of not-retracted and proven-by-time papers in Nature is a lot higher than in any other journal. Simply because of higher exposure, more attempts to reproduce or use studies and more scrutiny.

Re: Nature makes all articles free to view

#128

Post by takluyver »

andrewparker wrote: post #98

Does this BS marketing PR stunt qualify Nature-published research papers for Gates Foundation-backed research now? Meaning: does this announcement qualify Nature as "open" enough for the Gates Foundation?

No, I don't think this counts. The Gates foundation policy is going to require CC-BY, and it doesn't sound like Nature is going that way.

Re: Nature makes all articles free to view

#129

Post by Animats »

therzathegza wrote: post #79

For those not in the know, Nature is THE journal to be in if you want to be successful in bioscience. It is peer reviewed, fairly exclusive, and they generally only publish game changer style science. If you are in science, and you get a first author Nature paper, your ticket is punched and you are about to have a moderately successful career. For all the nitpicking going on about the delivery method, searching, and…

For those not in the know, Nature is THE journal to be in if you want to be successful in bioscience.

The key words there are "in bioscience". Nature publishes articles on other subjects, including nanotechnology and computer science. Those tend to be underwhelming.

Re: Nature makes all articles free to view

#130

Post by Animats »

Nature did not make all articles free to view. That's a misleading announcement. What they did is far more limited. If you have a paid Nature subscription, you can get a link which you can send to someone else. They can then read a DRM-protected PDF-like file through a proprietary on-line viewer.

If you want to read an article right now, it's $18 and up. Or you can now "rent" the article for $3.99 and up and view it in their proprietary viewer for a short period.

This is decidedly not "open access publication".

Post reply on HN