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

Don't Publish with IEEE (2005)

cr.yp.to

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 97 posts

Re: Don't Publish with IEEE (2005)

#31

Post by jampekka »

michaelmior wrote: post #26
zero_k wrote: post #7

Publishing in Academia is a scam. Nowadays everyone puts their papers also on arxiv.org so at least we can read each other's papers for free. While of course still paying the fees to these publishers who are doing nothing but messing up the PDF (I have to fight them to fix the mistakes they add every time a paper is published), while claiming to do a value-add, which happens to add value to nobody but their own pocke…

> which happens to add value to nobody but their own pockets. While publishers as they exist now are not necessary for this, the publishing process does typically incorporate peer review which has significant value. I agree that things need to change, but I don't think it's true that zero value is added by publishers.

Peer review and editing is done free by academics. Publishers "facilitate" this by having horrible unusable sofware platforms from the 90's for this. These are actually worse than nothing, as review would be a lot easier to organize and conduct via e-mail.

Publishers don't add value, they subtract it.

People probably have hard time undersanding this because the system is so absurd and so obvious racket they don't think such can exist.

Re: Don't Publish with IEEE (2005)

#32

Post by sonzohan »

michaelmior wrote: post #26
zero_k wrote: post #7

Publishing in Academia is a scam. Nowadays everyone puts their papers also on arxiv.org so at least we can read each other's papers for free. While of course still paying the fees to these publishers who are doing nothing but messing up the PDF (I have to fight them to fix the mistakes they add every time a paper is published), while claiming to do a value-add, which happens to add value to nobody but their own pocke…

> which happens to add value to nobody but their own pockets. While publishers as they exist now are not necessary for this, the publishing process does typically incorporate peer review which has significant value. I agree that things need to change, but I don't think it's true that zero value is added by publishers.

> does typically incorporate peer review which has significant value.

Significant value which is given gratis by said peers, which journals use to boost their reputability and, by association, their profits. Publishers are profiting off of free labor from subject matter experts. Even more disappointing is this free labor is viewed as a right of passage. Don't forget that the author spent hundreds to thousands of dollars to access these unpaid peers. Publishers are increasingly well-known as scammy. It's why MIT ended their Elsevier contract, and why many other R1s are following suit.

Also don't get me started on the dubious quality of peer review in todays "Publish or Perish" climate.

Re: Don't Publish with IEEE (2005)

#33

Post by the8472 »

zero_k wrote: post #7

Publishing in Academia is a scam. Nowadays everyone puts their papers also on arxiv.org so at least we can read each other's papers for free. While of course still paying the fees to these publishers who are doing nothing but messing up the PDF (I have to fight them to fix the mistakes they add every time a paper is published), while claiming to do a value-add, which happens to add value to nobody but their own pocke…

Sounds like a coordination problem? Couldn't university departments sign pledges that they'll stop using those journals if N peer institutions in their country do too?

Re: Don't Publish with IEEE (2005)

#34

Post by Y_Y »

A_D_E_P_T wrote: post #20
pyrale wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get it. Why use a preprint server associated with publishers, when publishers have the history they have? What's the difference with putting them on e.g. arxiv?

Arxiv has a narrow focus (only physics) and it's rather difficult to even get permission to publish there in the first place. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory runs BioRxiv and MedRxiv for biology and medicine, respectively, but again there's the issue of focus. Those are the big three. Then IEEE started TechRxiv as a preprint server for tech/engineering, which, given the landscape at the time, was a good move.

It's very easy to get access to arxiv.org, if you're at a university or a company doing research you'll surely have a colleague to vouch for you. Even if you're a lone wolf, just ask someone on a subject-focussed site or email a local professor.

Re: Don't Publish with IEEE (2005)

#35

Post by jltsiren »

beezlebroxxxxxx wrote: post #28
cernocky wrote: post #15

What we need is: 1. make science self-publishing using decentralised protocols the default 2. redefine traditional journals and publishers as curators or labellers on top of the network, instead of owners

Before you do either of those you need to convince academia that publishing in traditional journals/"prestige" legacy journals does not matter as much to the job. The entire system has Goodhart's Law-ed themselves into a trap connecting tenure to a very specific kind of publishing. Until that changes everything else will just get ignored.

The academia is not the real problem. Once you pass the initial filters, you will be judged by other academics, who are usually pretty reasonable. (For every reviewer 2, there is also a reviewer 1 and a reviewer 3.) They may not always notice that things work in different ways in different fields, and they may not have enough time to evaluate you properly. But they will usually at least try to see behind the metrics.

Governments are another matter, because they lack the expertise to judge your work. Immigration officials in particular are something academics often have to deal with. For some type-2 fun, try applying for a visa that requires something beyond a PhD from a reputable university and a job offer.

Re: Don't Publish with IEEE (2005)

#37

Post by jampekka »

jll29 wrote: post #16

But publishing a public domain paper with a commercial publisher still makes little sense, unless the paper is also _open access_, for without the latter, the public domain document could still be put behind a pay wall. Just because it is owned by no-body does not create a duty for the publisher to open their paywall (unlike, for instance, the viral clauses of software licenses like FSF's GPL, which include language…

It it's public domain copies can hosted by anyone.

Re: Don't Publish with IEEE (2005)

#38

Post by impendia »

zero_k wrote: post #7

Publishing in Academia is a scam. Nowadays everyone puts their papers also on arxiv.org so at least we can read each other's papers for free. While of course still paying the fees to these publishers who are doing nothing but messing up the PDF (I have to fight them to fix the mistakes they add every time a paper is published), while claiming to do a value-add, which happens to add value to nobody but their own pocke…

As an academic, I agree with almost everything you say -- but I wouldn't blame policies in universities. As much as I hate all the bureaucracy, I can't blame it here.

Academics are periodically called upon to pass judgment on other academics. It's an unsavory part of our job, but given that there are fewer jobs, less grant funding, etc. than the number of strong applications, it's a necessary evil.

To the best we can, we try to evaluate their research record directly. But it is maddeningly difficult to evaluate work even slightly out of your field, and so journals serve as a signaling mechanism.

And here I agree again with what you say: we are paying millions to Springer, Elsevier, etc. for the use of their names. ("Ooh, this person published in Inventiones Mathematicae!") Which we we made great.

As much as I despise this system, if you believe that universities can change this, at the level of policy, I am very curious to hear what you propose.

Re: Don't Publish with IEEE (2005)

#39

Post by jampekka »

sonzohan wrote: post #32
michaelmior wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> which happens to add value to nobody but their own pockets. While publishers as they exist now are not necessary for this, the publishing process does typically incorporate peer review which has significant value. I agree that things need to change, but I don't think it's true that zero value is added by publishers.

> does typically incorporate peer review which has significant value. Significant value which is given gratis by said peers, which journals use to boost their reputability and, by association, their profits. Publishers are profiting off of free labor from subject matter experts. Even more disappointing is this free labor is viewed as a right of passage. Don't forget that the author spent hundreds to thousands of doll…

> It's why MIT ended their Elsevier contract, and why many other R1s are following suit.

I think focusing on Elsevier is/was a mistake. All the publishers are running the exact same racket. Even non-profits like IEEE. It's a disgrace.

Re: Don't Publish with IEEE (2005)

#40

Post by shaky-carrousel »

jampekka wrote: post #31
michaelmior wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> which happens to add value to nobody but their own pockets. While publishers as they exist now are not necessary for this, the publishing process does typically incorporate peer review which has significant value. I agree that things need to change, but I don't think it's true that zero value is added by publishers.

Peer review and editing is done free by academics. Publishers "facilitate" this by having horrible unusable sofware platforms from the 90's for this. These are actually worse than nothing, as review would be a lot easier to organize and conduct via e-mail. Publishers don't add value, they subtract it. People probably have hard time undersanding this because the system is so absurd and so obvious racket they don't thi…

Peer reviewing could be made easier by public key cryptography. You could establish a web of trust between reviewers.
Post reply on HN