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

MIT Ends Elsevier Negotiations

news.mit.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 269 posts

Re: MIT Ends Elsevier Negotiations

#231

Post by alasdair_ »

underdeserver wrote: post #22

I honestly don't understand why JSTOR, Elsevier and others like them still need to exist. Top universities should just found a non-profit, per subject, with a single paid facilitator and a single paid editor (per journal) to find peer reviewers and edit the papers into a monthly journal. Modern tech has made it ridiculously easy to type, edit and publish such a thing if the inputs are LaTeX, Word, Markdown files or a…

>I honestly don't understand why JSTOR, Elsevier and others like them still need to exist.

I'm going to guess they exist because, despite decrying these companies, scientists still want to snag that spot in Nature for the same reason that writing a front-page New York Times article is considered a bigger deal than publishing the same story on your blog, even if the content is identical.

Re: MIT Ends Elsevier Negotiations

#232

Post by alasdair_ »

ikiris wrote: post #125
lozaning wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have to imagine it: https://scihub.wikicn.top/

this site doesn't even load.

>this site doesn't even load.

Probably time to use an ISP that is less willing to mess with your Internet access, or at least use a VPN and a different DNS server.

Re: MIT Ends Elsevier Negotiations

#233

Post by jacquesm »

woofie11 wrote: post #175
ramraj07 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just came across his name yesterday when I was looking for python markdown parsers! Thinking about what happened to him, I'm a bit ambivalent. He was a great dude, for sure, but what he did with downloading the entire JSTOR database sneakily does sound a bit out there. It's definitely a Robinhood move, but Robinhood also had an arrest warrant on him. Expecting no less of a retaliation would have been naive at best. M…

There are two pieces here: How the legal system behaved, and how MIT behaved. What you're saying makes 100% sense for an aggressive prosecutor. On the other hand, MIT was behaving in a way which was pure evil. To go back to the Robinhood analogy, I would expect the Sheriff of Nottingham to go after Robinhood with perfect dedication -- that's his job. On the other hand, if Friar Tuck made it his life's work to go afte…

> On the other hand, MIT was behaving in a way which was pure evil.

And they then proceeded to whitewash it, adding insult to injury.

Re: MIT Ends Elsevier Negotiations

#235

Post by Vinnl »

czzr wrote: post #73

When thinking about the cost of providing the services journals provide, I’m always struck by the example of PloS - non-profit, set up with the mission of promoting open access, and just about surviving by charging authors $2000-$3000 per article. I can only conclude that managing journals is not as cost free as most people in this thread seem to think, for whatever reason.

And PLoS has, unfortunately, been getting in financial problems because Nature started a competitor that provides exactly the same service (I think slightly more expensive, but might be wrong there), but with the Nature brand name.

Which provides a hint as to what the most important product is that publishers sell.

Re: MIT Ends Elsevier Negotiations

#237

Post by watwut »

enriquto wrote: post #20
LeifCarrotson wrote: post #11

Here is the MIT Framework for Publisher Contracts: https://libraries.mit.edu/scholarly/publishing/framework/ It requires that: 1. No author will be required to waive any institutional or funder open access policy to publish in any of the publisher’s journals. 2. No author will be required to relinquish copyright, but instead will be provided with options that enable publication while also providing authors with gener…

> What was surprising was the number of institutions which had signed onto the framework - my alma mater included. I'm curious how many of these still have an Elsevier contract. If you ever tried to dig deep into the internals of a large organization, you will notice that they are perfectly capable of managing a set of self-contradictory rules. It is actually an amazing power. At least, this was my experience. For a…

Organizations are composed from many people doing independent decisions and forgetting about old decisions. There is nothing difficult about organization being inconsistent, the difficult leadership task is to make it consistent.

Inconsistency is natural state even when we ignore the fact that all humans are internally inconsistent - including mathematicians.

Re: MIT Ends Elsevier Negotiations

#238

Post by watwut »

aspaceman wrote: post #180
jl6 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still have never seen a concrete example of a job which is clearly a bullshit job. Any suggestions?

Has always seemed like a rhetorical device to me. In effect no job is actually bullshit since if it was it would be eliminated. The truest "bullshit" job is one where you are absolutely irreplacable for a single, trivial piece of knowledge. I.E. I'm the only one who can print the records at the end of the year, and otherwise I do (practically) nothing. That's how I've always thought of it, but others may disagree. Of…

Corporations are not effective and useless positions are not necessary eliminated.

Re: MIT Ends Elsevier Negotiations

#239

Post by nawwal »

woofie11 wrote: post #175
ramraj07 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just came across his name yesterday when I was looking for python markdown parsers! Thinking about what happened to him, I'm a bit ambivalent. He was a great dude, for sure, but what he did with downloading the entire JSTOR database sneakily does sound a bit out there. It's definitely a Robinhood move, but Robinhood also had an arrest warrant on him. Expecting no less of a retaliation would have been naive at best. M…

There are two pieces here: How the legal system behaved, and how MIT behaved. What you're saying makes 100% sense for an aggressive prosecutor. On the other hand, MIT was behaving in a way which was pure evil. To go back to the Robinhood analogy, I would expect the Sheriff of Nottingham to go after Robinhood with perfect dedication -- that's his job. On the other hand, if Friar Tuck made it his life's work to go afte…

I don't totally understand why there's so much hate on MIT for this, so consider this more of an inquiry rather than an outright defense of what happened and let me know if I'm missing something critical:

Based on what I know, Aaron Swartz - someone with no affiliation to MIT - abused MIT's open campus/network policies and tried to download all of JSTOR by hiding a laptop in a closet. At best, this is at least something sketchy to do by someone with no connection to the university. MIT discovered this, turned the matters over to the police, Swartz got caught, and the (overzealous) prosecutors took it from there. MIT did not "make it [its] life's work to go after [Swartz]". You can certainly criticize it for not trying to help him, especially given MIT's hacker-friendly culture and the fact that his actions did not hurt anyone, but I think it's unfair to have expected MIT to make a stand against the prosecutor/criminal justice system and predicted Swartz's suicide, after he rejected the 6 month minimum-security prison deal and decided to go to trial instead.

I'm all for open access, but Swartz's methods were at least a bit questionable and he should have expected some repercussions should he get caught (I'm sure he did, hence the hiding of the laptop). And in the end, blaming MIT for being neutral in a politically-charged case and for Swartz's death seems unfair, it is an academic and research institution after all, not a public defender.

Re: MIT Ends Elsevier Negotiations

#240

Post by vegesm »

dwheeler wrote: post #70
pfortuny wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know: I just stated that "organizing" it was expensive. I do know that reviewing is free (I have done it).

Organizing is not expensive. What is expensive is paying the typesetters to place the movable type in various places, and to create plates with the various graphics. Oh wait, we don't need to do that anymore. At this point, there is no rational justification for what Elsevier is doing now except greed. They actually have some other services that makes sense, but this lock on academic papers is simply a historical acc…

It's time consuming and that is money (granted, Elsevier still gets more money than what is paid to editors)
Post reply on HN