Elsevier cuts off UC’s access to its academic journals • Hacker News Board

Re: Elsevier cuts off UC’s access to its academic journals

#181

Post by natechols » Sat, Jul 13, 2019, 9:01 PM UTC

SequoiaHope wrote: post #142

marksomnian wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Copyright as an idea is fine - as in, how it was described in the Constitution: "securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries", emphasis on "limited times". It's our current batarnak of an implementation that's causing all the problems. Getting rid of copyright and instituting a copy-anarchy would mean that creatives would have no real incentive…

I see it another way: bring about a true socialist society where people do not need to work to survive, and in that world people can do as they please with no concern for income. Creativity has many benefits other than income and eliminating profit incentives would allow us to pursue those other benefits more freely.

Paraphrasing a comment I read years ago: if your hypothetical economic system depends on everyone in the society behaving in a way that humans have never behaved in all of recorded history, it's pure fantasy. Eliminating the daily struggle for survival via something like UBI is not intrinsically a bad idea IMHO. Eliminating profit incentives altogether is effectively impossible - given the chance, most people will always act out of self-interest without even pausing to think about it. Or do you think socialist countries are magically free from corruption and greed?

Re: Elsevier cuts off UC’s access to its academic journals

#182

Post by aj7 » Sat, Jul 13, 2019, 9:05 PM UTC

0815test wrote: post #79

gumby wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good question. COnsider: First, PLoS fees are lower and as a nonprofit only have to support operation (no profit). Also as a nonprofit there is some transparency as to where those fees go, so I assume that publishing there really does cost something like $1600. Second PLoS's fee rules include the sentence "Authors' ability to pay publication fees will never be a consideration in the decision whether to publish." Else…

> (I'm looking at you, MIT!) You couldn't choose a worse example than that. MIT famously screwed Aaron Swartz legally over public domain (pre-1923) papers, by baselessly claiming that his access had been "unauthorized" when in fact it was entirely consistent with their own pre-existing policies! They are a bad actor in this whole issue and aren't going to do a thing.

Greatest stain on MIT since Poole and Pyle.

Re: Elsevier cuts off UC’s access to its academic journals

#183

Post by Vinnl » Sat, Jul 13, 2019, 9:06 PM UTC

new2628 wrote: post #177

xiii1408 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Career progress in academia is mostly based on publications in top-tier journals in your field. If those journals aren't open access, you're required to publish in closed access journals if you want to (1) get a Ph.D., (2) get tenure, etc.

With all respect, this attitude from the researchers side is exactly what maintains the system and what Elsevier and co take advantage of. Signed: a professor who never published with Elsevier.

Well, most of those who did not have that attitude are not in academia any more, so expecting that is not really going to help. It's the ones who cause that (i.e. use journal name as a quality indicator when looking for people to hire) that should be looked towards.

Re: Elsevier cuts off UC’s access to its academic journals

#184

Post by btrettel » Sat, Jul 13, 2019, 9:08 PM UTC

vkou wrote: post #153

btrettel wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PhD student here. Here's my 20 minute rant: If I don't like academia, it's from my experience in academia. Doing good research won't guarantee you a position. On the contrary, what seems to matter is bringing in a lot of money via grants and publishing tons of papers in recognized journals. This better be done steadily too. I know one guy who didn't get tenure at my university, likely because he had a year or two wit…

> Doing good research won't guarantee you a position. Doing good work in industry doesn't, either. Depending where you work, you still need to play all the same bullshit political games. The difference is, you can leave an abusive job/boss with a lot less friction then you can leave an abusive graduate/post-graduate program/advisor.

Good points. I agree that industry isn't perfect, though I'm looking more at that today than academia. Long-term I'm leaning towards becoming an independent researcher as it seems to be the easiest path to doing actually valuable research today. But I first need to save up enough money to do that.

Re: Elsevier cuts off UC’s access to its academic journals

#185

Post by Vinnl » Sat, Jul 13, 2019, 9:09 PM UTC

0az wrote: post #33

Vinnl wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, they've been maintaining access for institutions that cancelled their subscriptions for presumably this reason pretty often already, but as more and more institutions jumped on the train, that's not really tenable: why would others keep paying subscriptions if you're not going to cut off access if they don't? But of course, if it turns out that access is not that necessary anyway, people will stop paying too. B…

Based on the email I got last week, they have a contractual obligation for old content. As for the new issues: I believe there's a standing recommendation to look for preprints or ask the authors for a copy.

Yes, I think usually access is perpetual, just as it would have been had the library had a physical copy.

For new issues, I'm confident people will manage; as you say, preprints have taken root in many more disciplines, and there are plenty of alternatives - legal ones, like inter-library loan, and Sci-Hub.

Re: Elsevier cuts off UC’s access to its academic journals

#186

Post by Vinnl » Sat, Jul 13, 2019, 9:11 PM UTC

jszymborski wrote: post #155

xiii1408 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or arXiv. Elsevier authors can post their papers on arXiv and/or their own website.

That's not strictly the case. This practice is actually infringing on your (albeit bonkers) agreement with Elsevier. You can only share copies with those who requested it as an act of "professional courtesy".

To all authors: note that it's often possible to modify the contract to enable it. They'll often not notice or just approve it. See https://sparcopen.org/our-work/author-rights/

Re: Elsevier cuts off UC’s access to its academic journals

#187

Post by Vinnl » Sat, Jul 13, 2019, 9:12 PM UTC

a1369209993 wrote: post #122

apo wrote: post #56

The model Elsevier operates on is under attack from a number of sides. In addition to UC, there is Plan S: > The plan requires scientists and researchers who benefit from state-funded research organisations and institutions to publish their work in open repositories or in journals that are available to all by 2021.[4] The "S" stands for "shock". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_S The plan is backed by a wide range…

> Elsevier may have a right to license its content as it sees fit Elsevier doesn't have content of it's own. It takes others' content (without paying them a dime in most - if not all - cases), maybe runs it through spellcheck, slaps a legal threat and price tag on it, and milks it for as much protection money as it can. Elsevier is the very model of modern major copyright troll.

People give Elsevier (and other publishers) their content, unfortunately...

Re: Elsevier cuts off UC’s access to its academic journals

#188

Post by CuriousSkeptic » Sat, Jul 13, 2019, 9:12 PM UTC

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #156

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I find interesting is how open source hardware companies can coexist with their cheap clones. The Prusa i3 printer is a great example. An assembled Prusa costs $1000 while clones are $200, and yet the two options serve different markets. If you’re a broke hobbyist you get the clones, and they take a lot of work to keep running. If you’re operating a school, business, or makerspace you get the Prusa because it’s…

One thing the layman loses with no IPR is the ability to tell which are the "real" Prusa, or the real brakes for their bike, or whatever. That is one thing that causes clear and imminent harm. I'm pretty communist in my thinking, rail hard against established IPR structures, but most of it would be sensible IMO if the balance were shifted back toward the demos . Things have been allowed to slip away from the IP deals…

Exactly the reason the term IPR shouldn’t be used https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html

Re: Elsevier cuts off UC’s access to its academic journals

#189

Post by Vinnl » Sat, Jul 13, 2019, 9:14 PM UTC

HeavenFox wrote: post #62

Every time I read about the incredibly exploitative scientific publishing industry, I can’t help but think: can we just make scientific papers not copyrightable? Researchers and their institutions don’t benefit from the copyright protection; they barely make any money from their work. Sure, someone can take your work and claim it as their own, but we already handle them as plagiarism rather than copyright infringemen…

While not 100% what you mentioned, in the Netherlands authors are allowed to freely share (semi-)government-funded however they please, after (I believe) six months. The universities now take care of that for you, if you're an author: https://www.openaccess.nl/en/you-share-we-take-care

Re: Elsevier cuts off UC’s access to its academic journals

#190

Post by Vinnl » Sat, Jul 13, 2019, 9:17 PM UTC

mmastrac wrote: post #84

> in the words of Dennis J. Ventry, a law professor at UC Davis who is vice chair of the academic senate’s committee on library and scholarly communication. He says the publisher’s last offer would have increased UC costs by 80% over three years, “hardly cost neutrality.” > Elsevier says its proposal would have allowed a fivefold increase in the number of UC articles it published under open access — from about 350 no…

Usually, when Elsevier talks about constant costs, they're talking about cost per article. At the same time, they pressure libraries into buying subscriptions in bulk, bundling less widely recognised journals with the big names, allowing them to charge more while claiming to keep the cost-per-article low.