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

Major U.K. science funder to require grantees to make papers immediately free

sciencemag.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 96 posts

Re: Major U.K. science funder to require grantees to make papers immediately free

#31

Post by wolverine876 »

cs702 wrote: post #9

Slowly and almost imperceptibly if you look at it day-to-day, public research repositories like arxiv and biorxiv, along with public code repositories like github and gitlab, are becoming or maybe already are the world's most important academic "journals." All research and code posted on them gets a quick once-over; good work gets the attention it deserves; bad work is quickly ignored. Reviews take place over the Int…

> All research and code posted on them gets a quick once-over; good work gets the attention it deserves; bad work is quickly ignored.

What is the basis for all these claims? Who is giving it the quick once-over?

Crowd-sourced review and information, despite some strengths and high initial hopes, has a record of extraordinary misinformation and disinformation. Why would we want to use that system for scientific research?

I prefer careful peer review, standards for announcing funders, etc.

Re: Major U.K. science funder to require grantees to make papers immediately free

#32

Post by jszymborski »

sprafa wrote: post #5
aurizon wrote: post #3

Now we need to get the Nobel Committee to say they will only read open source papers - this is a valid option as the paywalls have denied most of the world's 'second tier' countries access for their scientists (to say nothing of interested science readers wherever they are) so going open source will only add to the common pool of knowledge

It’s truly horrific that as an interested layman I am completely UNABLE to read most scientific papers. And to think about what they did to Aaron Schwartz…

It is truly awful that publishers do this, however there is a certain website-that-shalt-not-be-named that is papering over that gap while we researchers get our shit together.

Re: Major U.K. science funder to require grantees to make papers immediately free

#33

Post by wolverine876 »

In case someone has some direct knowledge or credible sources: I'm not sure what is stopping reform at a political level. Who is the political constituency that obstructs open access? The publishers seem too small, and the science and higher ed constituency too large.

Re: Major U.K. science funder to require grantees to make papers immediately free

#34

Post by chrisseaton »

andi999 wrote: post #30
chrisseaton wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They usually send you a 'pre-print' which (in their opinion - I'm not a lawyer) is not subject to the same copyright as the final reversion which was sent to review.

Thanks. Any sources for their opinion? Probably I shd read the copyright release form in more detail, but if you think terms of copyright this won't fly.

> but if you think terms of copyright this won't fly

Wooah there I'm not giving any legal advice. Ask a lawyer.

Re: Major U.K. science funder to require grantees to make papers immediately free

#35

Post by treesprite82 »

wolverine876 wrote: post #31
cs702 wrote: post #9

Slowly and almost imperceptibly if you look at it day-to-day, public research repositories like arxiv and biorxiv, along with public code repositories like github and gitlab, are becoming or maybe already are the world's most important academic "journals." All research and code posted on them gets a quick once-over; good work gets the attention it deserves; bad work is quickly ignored. Reviews take place over the Int…

> All research and code posted on them gets a quick once-over; good work gets the attention it deserves; bad work is quickly ignored. What is the basis for all these claims? Who is giving it the quick once-over? Crowd-sourced review and information, despite some strengths and high initial hopes, has a record of extraordinary misinformation and disinformation. Why would we want to use that system for scientific resear…

> Who is giving it the quick once-over?

arXiv has 200 expert moderators spread through different fields to filter out papers that are blatantly misleading, unoriginal, non-substantive, or in need of significant review and revision. It's not a peer-review, but it's not a complete free-for-all either.

Re: Major U.K. science funder to require grantees to make papers immediately free

#36

Post by AlbertCory »

Reed Elsevier and the other rent seekers got no reason to live.

That said: in the legal world, where PACER extracts $0.10 per "page" even now that you get things electronically and the cost is near zero:

There's a service RECAP (PACER spelled backwards), where you can install a browser extension which automatically copies anything you download from PACER to a free archive. So one person pays, and the rest get it free.

It is amazingly complete, much more than you would think. For instance, here's the entry for the Elizabeth Holmes (Theranos) trial:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7185174/united-states-v...

Re: Major U.K. science funder to require grantees to make papers immediately free

#37

Post by gmueckl »

andi999 wrote: post #30
chrisseaton wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They usually send you a 'pre-print' which (in their opinion - I'm not a lawyer) is not subject to the same copyright as the final reversion which was sent to review.

Thanks. Any sources for their opinion? Probably I shd read the copyright release form in more detail, but if you think terms of copyright this won't fly.

Even if it is potentially technically illegal, I don't know about anyone who tried to stop it. Note that some release forms explicitly allow author's versions of the covered work for download on the author's website. There's usually a stipulation that they need to be different in some way, for example by not using the same formatting template as the journal/conference version of the paper.

Re: Major U.K. science funder to require grantees to make papers immediately free

#38

Post by AlbertCory »

Another point about peer review:

It sounds good but has become hopelessly corrupted in many fields. Cronyism ("I'll pass your paper if you pass mine"), conformity ("This isn't what the Cool Kids have agreed to, so you can't publish it") and also "This is too readable. Needs more jargon!" have taken over. Does this mean it should be thrown out altogether, or just reformed? I'm not sure.

Re: Major U.K. science funder to require grantees to make papers immediately free

#39

Post by Someone »

andi999 wrote: post #30
chrisseaton wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They usually send you a 'pre-print' which (in their opinion - I'm not a lawyer) is not subject to the same copyright as the final reversion which was sent to review.

Thanks. Any sources for their opinion? Probably I shd read the copyright release form in more detail, but if you think terms of copyright this won't fly.

With at least some of the major publishers, it nowadays is even legal to put the final paper on a public web site or the Archiv.

https://www.springernature.com/gp/authors/how-to-share:

“Authors publishing via subscription models may also self-archive a copy of the accepted version of their manuscript (post-peer review, but prior to copy-editing and typesetting) in an institutional or subject repository, where it can be made openly accessible after an embargo period, in accordance with the relevant Springer Nature self-archiving policy (Nature, Springer, or Palgrave Macmillan)”

(More info at https://www.nature.com/nature-portfolio/editorial-policies/s...)

https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/sharing:

“Accepted Manuscript

Authors can share their accepted manuscript:

Immediately

- via their non-commercial personal homepage or blog

- by updating a preprint in arXiv or RePEc with the accepted manuscript

- via their research institute or institutional repository for internal institutional uses or as part of an invitation-only research collaboration work-group

- directly by providing copies to their students or to research collaborators for their personal use

- for private scholarly sharing as part of an invitation-only work group on commercial sites with which Elsevier has an agreement

After the embargo period

- via non-commercial hosting platforms such as their institutional repository

- via commercial sites with which Elsevier has an agreement“*

(Seems a bit less constrained than SpringerNature)

Re: Major U.K. science funder to require grantees to make papers immediately free

#40

Post by sfgweilr4f »

cs702 wrote: post #9

Slowly and almost imperceptibly if you look at it day-to-day, public research repositories like arxiv and biorxiv, along with public code repositories like github and gitlab, are becoming or maybe already are the world's most important academic "journals." All research and code posted on them gets a quick once-over; good work gets the attention it deserves; bad work is quickly ignored. Reviews take place over the Int…

I'm idly curious:

does arxiv show who reviewed it? credentials etc?

Is there a trust scoring mechanism or some such?

is there some way to show a graph of reviewing?

Is there a restriction on who can post a paper?

(I'm not saying any of these are needed to make it "respectable" or even that they should be... just wondering how arxiv does its thing)

Personally I like the overall concept of arxiv. Even with no one necessarily reviewing a paper, which is probably unlikely, the fact its even accessible for later review when necessary is worthwhile.

Post reply on HN