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

A World Without Sci-Hub

palladiummag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 206 posts

Re: A World Without Sci-Hub

#41

Post by mach1ne »

frankling_ wrote: post #33
nine_k wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought that the point of journals is review and filtering, their selectively, I thought, is their value proposition over arxiv.org. Am I mistaken?

What I'm proposing is to convince the same people that currently take care of the reviewing and selection process for an established journal to do the same thing for an open and independent variant of the same journal, which is run alongside the original journal.

Sadly these people are replaceable, and to my understanding the rights to the journals themselves are owned by the academic publishing industry. People don't really care who runs Nature; it is the reputation of the name that counts.

Re: A World Without Sci-Hub

#42

Post by mdp2021 »

frankling_ wrote: post #29
einpoklum wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure there is a way around it. You publish in an established venue, but also put the paper on a public website. This is possible legally using the "standard trick": https://academia.stackexchange.com/a/119002/7319 ... and is in relatively wide practice.

That's not a way around publishing at the established venues, it's done in addition to it. Everyone still submits to the established journals and conferences because this is what is being evaluated for career advancement and funding.

Is not the chief practical problem that access to knowledge gets barred in a pay-to-read system. The trick is one patch against that chief practical issue, which can be for these purposes separated by the systemic issue.

Re: A World Without Sci-Hub

#43

Post by xorfish »

nivenkos wrote: post #37
xorfish wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US has the highest prison population per capita in the world. Mostly because of an outdated view on justice and crime.

It's good for violent crimes though. Whereas in Sweden for example, a violent rapist was awarded ~$84k - https://www.gp.se/ledare/v%C3%A5ldt%C3%A4ktsmannens-skadest%... - after he turned out to be a minor but had been tried as an adult, and in the end spent less than 2 years in prison. Some of ThePirateBay founders had longer sentences, absolute clown world.

That outdated view in your comment is exactly what I mean.

There might be an argument if the US actually had lower crime or recidivism rates than European countries, but it does not have that.

Yes, it takes some effort to overcome that primal view on justice, but it leads to a more humane society with less crime.

Re: A World Without Sci-Hub

#44

Post by CamperBob2 »

conz wrote: post #39
quantum_magpie wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't want to because publishing in open access costs us $2000.

We don't want to because publishing in open access costs us $2000. Out of curiosity, what does publishing in closed-access journals cost?

There's no way to be sure. Maybe nothing. Maybe everything.

Or were you just referring to money?

Re: A World Without Sci-Hub

#45

Post by markdown »

nivenkos wrote: post #37
xorfish wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US has the highest prison population per capita in the world. Mostly because of an outdated view on justice and crime.

It's good for violent crimes though. Whereas in Sweden for example, a violent rapist was awarded ~$84k - https://www.gp.se/ledare/v%C3%A5ldt%C3%A4ktsmannens-skadest%... - after he turned out to be a minor but had been tried as an adult, and in the end spent less than 2 years in prison. Some of ThePirateBay founders had longer sentences, absolute clown world.

It sounds like that Sweden case is justified. An injustice was done to him, and he got restitution.

That injustice is separate and distinct from the one he committed on a fellow human being, and for that case he spent two years in prison. This sounds unreasonably short, but without further information, who are we to say whether that was acceptable or not? Perhaps two years was enough to help the rapist overcome his violent tendencies.

Re: A World Without Sci-Hub

#46

Post by mdp2021 »

conz wrote: post #39
quantum_magpie wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't want to because publishing in open access costs us $2000.

We don't want to because publishing in open access costs us $2000. Out of curiosity, what does publishing in closed-access journals cost?

I think the reference would be e.g. to post https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28691445 in this page from stuartbman

(«free for the author but kept behind a paywall, or the author pays up front»)

Re: A World Without Sci-Hub

#47

Post by frankling_ »

mdp2021 wrote: post #42
frankling_ wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not a way around publishing at the established venues, it's done in addition to it. Everyone still submits to the established journals and conferences because this is what is being evaluated for career advancement and funding.

Is not the chief practical problem that access to knowledge gets barred in a pay-to-read system. The trick is one patch against that chief practical issue, which can be for these purposes separated by the systemic issue.

I agree: it helps a lot with the practical issue of access to knowledge. But from a taxpayer's or academic's perspective it wouldn't hurt to also eliminate the exorbitant publishing/licensing fees.

Re: A World Without Sci-Hub

#48

Post by mach1ne »

The core issue is that journals offer standard. People don't like to bother with checking every paper's reputability with a magnifying glass, and the reputation of the journal gives a shortcut around that. It's editorial work which gives the competitive edge.

Now, of course scientists could run a reputable journal for free or on donations. However, once you have achieved a reputable status with your journal, it becomes something that can be milked for money. And generally people fail to resist that temptation.

Even if they resisted, they still have the entire academic publishing industry very scared, and as we can see, these are people who aren't afraid to use the dirtiest tactics to protect their position.

Even though the status quo is strong, it can be dismantled.

Re: A World Without Sci-Hub

#49

Post by frankling_ »

mach1ne wrote: post #41
frankling_ wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I'm proposing is to convince the same people that currently take care of the reviewing and selection process for an established journal to do the same thing for an open and independent variant of the same journal, which is run alongside the original journal.

Sadly these people are replaceable, and to my understanding the rights to the journals themselves are owned by the academic publishing industry. People don't really care who runs Nature; it is the reputation of the name that counts.

That's a good point, editors and reviewers come and go. Ideally, the newcomers would by default also be attached to "Independent Open Nature", until it becomes irrational to submit to Nature itself.

Re: A World Without Sci-Hub

#50

Post by stuartbman »

Anecdotally, my university has been paying for fewer and fewer journal subscriptions. I was looking through the literature the other day and about half of the articles I needed to access weren't subscribed to by my (large, redbrick) university. I believe this is a shift recognising that academics will just skirt the access via sci-hub as a way for universities to trim their library budgets.
Post reply on HN