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

Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 207 posts

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#181

Post by card_zero »

Henchman21 wrote: post #179
criddell wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the downvotes come from the comment not really saying much. If my use of Tor makes me look suspicious in the eyes of the police is that the purpose of Tor?

And I think it comes from bots who attempt to police allowed thoughts on HN. To each their own, I suppose

Is reading the astralcodexten post among your allowed thoughts? I don't downvote comments, but I think POSIWID is total bollocks. It may mean "some systems are somewhat corrupted by malign influences", in which case phrasing that as POSIWID is an outrageous exaggeration, or it may mean "there are no purposes", which is just untrue, or "your hoped-for purpose is naive", which is made less clear by phrasing it as POSIWID.

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#182

Post by karencarits »

jrumbut wrote: post #18
stncls wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh even if your org has a subscription, the fees are insane. You just don't see them. Things are slowly changing but I can't wait for this parasitic business model to collapse for good.

What's most bothersome is there is work for them to do. How about assigning a real copy editor with subject matter expertise? How about publishing open source libraries that automatically validate and output visualizations for their formats? How about hosting multimedia supplements? It would not be difficult at all to earn the money they charge. There is so much room for creativity and innovation and adding value in…

[dead]

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#183

Post by latency-guy2 »

Henchman21 wrote: post #179
criddell wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the downvotes come from the comment not really saying much. If my use of Tor makes me look suspicious in the eyes of the police is that the purpose of Tor?

And I think it comes from bots who attempt to police allowed thoughts on HN. To each their own, I suppose

You can ask dang specifically or another moderator to prove if you are being trafficked down to irrelevancy by bots. I'm very certain you're wrong either way.

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#184

Post by wormius »

KennyBlanken wrote: post #180
12_throw_away wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right? A lot of journals make a big deal about submitting your manuscript in the proper format (sometimes even LaTeX if you're lucky) and then you get the galley proofs back and half the equations and citations now have typos in them. The entire publishing process often feels like a chain of "you had ONE job"-type errors from the journals (presumably because they're wildly underpaying and overworking the people whose…

It could be incompetence, or it could be reviewers and others intentionally trying to sabotage other people's work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#185

Post by fc417fc802 »

MostlyStable wrote: post #32
vitally3643 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds an awful lot like "costs" which seriously compromises the "free profit" model. Why pay money to make a better product when you can pay zero money for a worse product and no change in subscriptions? What are your customers gonna do, go get the paper somewhere else?

20 years ago, that argument would make sense. They had no competition and could do what they wanted. As an earlier comment stated: that is starting to change, and if they wait until open competitors are fully established, then it will be too late. Now is the time for them to realize that their parasitic business model is coming to an end and they need to change if they want to survive long term. They can of course ch…

The time was more than a decade ago. They've consistently chosen to do nothing more than make vague noises about improving.

In addition to the high seas we've got a plethora of preprint services. Between arxiv and bioarxiv alone you can access a decent chunk of the modern literature. What we need at this point is for institutions to require uploading all publications to one of a handful of officially sanctioned preprint services under a CC license and to strictly forbid publishing with any venue that objects to authors disseminating a CC licensed version of the work.

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#186

Post by oliculipolicula »

PaulHoule wrote: post #93
jrumbut wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's most bothersome is there is work for them to do. How about assigning a real copy editor with subject matter expertise? How about publishing open source libraries that automatically validate and output visualizations for their formats? How about hosting multimedia supplements? It would not be difficult at all to earn the money they charge. There is so much room for creativity and innovation and adding value in…

I was involved with arXiv when it first came to Cornell (blame me if you can't get an endorsement!) and we did plenty of analysis about the cost structure of academic publishing. When we looked at well-run noncommercial journals, like The Physical Review , the cost was justified by exception handling in the peer review process. The average peer review case goes smoothly but if somebody has a complaint and there a lot…

Not much to worry about then: Ginsparg* doesn't seem like he would have triggered Ghislaine's matcher, plus these guys don't like to step into the same river twice (out of superstition, mainly)

(delete this conspiracism if PP makes highlights?)

As it is Garry still isn't distancing himself [further] from PLTR (I think), and I wonder if _you'd_ apply to Dialog for a snark?

*Ginsparg comes off as having some of the same curmudgeonly bits of Habermas so they might even fear him long after it doesn't matter anymore

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#187

Post by fc417fc802 »

JadeNB wrote: post #148
12_throw_away wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, maybe no competition when we're talking about institutional access rights on dry land. However, for everyone else, there's quite a bit of competition out there in the high seas.

That's only for individual usage, which, I assume, is small potatoes compared to institutional usage. No major research institution is going to use piracy as an institutional policy, and neither is it going to boycott Springer, since at least some researchers would put up a fuss—because you don't just need access to lots of papers, sometimes you need access to that specific paper.

> No major research institution is going to use piracy as an institutional policy

But they could adopt an official policy of all publications being CC licensed and uploaded to at least one of a few officially sanctioned preprint services. That would do a lot to undercut the publishers going forward.

At this point a lot becomes open access after a few years anyway. The issue is historic papers but all of those can be reliably found on the high seas.

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#188

Post by 12_throw_away »

KennyBlanken wrote: post #180
12_throw_away wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right? A lot of journals make a big deal about submitting your manuscript in the proper format (sometimes even LaTeX if you're lucky) and then you get the galley proofs back and half the equations and citations now have typos in them. The entire publishing process often feels like a chain of "you had ONE job"-type errors from the journals (presumably because they're wildly underpaying and overworking the people whose…

It could be incompetence, or it could be reviewers and others intentionally trying to sabotage other people's work.

> it could be reviewers and others intentionally trying to sabotage other people's work

Anyone with even a tiny bit of knowledge about the topic being discussed would know that everything I described happens after reviewers and editors approve the manuscript. At this stage, they have all long since ended their involvement in the process.

As with most conspiracy theories, this "theory" reveals much about you, but fails to say anything at all about the topic at hand. [1]

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzDztyS09CU

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#189

Post by yreg »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #178
yreg wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? What is so costly about running a journal?

Even just the basic admin costs associated with paper review - handling that for a medium sized journal is at least one full time job - are going to add up to more than I think donations will ever generate for such a task. My mental model is a non-print journal, so there are very few "publishing" costs, but the overall administration of things, from the tech side to the typical scientific paper processing workflow, i…

Myriads of organizations doing much more mundane things can attract donations to sustain full time employees.

Re: Springer Nature has removed two studies by Max Planck

#190

Post by DrBazza »

fc417fc802 wrote: post #185
MostlyStable wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

20 years ago, that argument would make sense. They had no competition and could do what they wanted. As an earlier comment stated: that is starting to change, and if they wait until open competitors are fully established, then it will be too late. Now is the time for them to realize that their parasitic business model is coming to an end and they need to change if they want to survive long term. They can of course ch…

The time was more than a decade ago. They've consistently chosen to do nothing more than make vague noises about improving. In addition to the high seas we've got a plethora of preprint services. Between arxiv and bioarxiv alone you can access a decent chunk of the modern literature. What we need at this point is for institutions to require uploading all publications to one of a handful of officially sanctioned prepr…

It would be nice if billion dollar big tech, in particular those that have R&D donate and form a not-for-profit together with universities that puts this to sleep once and for all. The small irony is that they're paying to submit their own research to another company to make it publicly available.
Post reply on HN