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

51–60 of 206 posts

Re: A World Without Sci-Hub

#51

Post by frankling_ »

stuartbman wrote: post #38
frankling_ wrote: post #12

The main issue is that currently there's no way around publishing at the established journals and conferences, because of the reputation they've built up. Funding and career advancement hinge on publications in these venues. If we accept that publishers don't offer much at all in return for the publication fees/library subscription costs (barely any editing, reviewers work pro bono, hosting PDFs is very cheap nowaday…

Most journals are hybrid now, and offer a choice when publishing- either it's free for the author but kept behind a paywall, or the author pays up front. The article processing charges are really expensive- BMJ is £3,500, Lancet $5000, Cell $5,200 etc, although some major funders have arranged 'site licenses' with publishers so that all their funded research can be published open access without charge to the scientis…

That's true, and I'm not sure how these fees can be justified.

Re: A World Without Sci-Hub

#52

Post by unnah »

frankling_ wrote: post #12

The main issue is that currently there's no way around publishing at the established journals and conferences, because of the reputation they've built up. Funding and career advancement hinge on publications in these venues. If we accept that publishers don't offer much at all in return for the publication fees/library subscription costs (barely any editing, reviewers work pro bono, hosting PDFs is very cheap nowaday…

There are a few cases in which the editorial board of a journal has seen the light, resigned from a traditional publisher, and restarted an essentially equivalent open access journal. It's however hard to see 1) why they would simultaneously continue doing the same job for the for-profit publisher, and 2) why the for-profit publisher would accept it.

Re: A World Without Sci-Hub

#53

Post by OskarS »

mach1ne wrote: post #48

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 becom…

The existence of many high quality open access journals would seem to contradict your theory.

Re: A World Without Sci-Hub

#54

Post by mdp2021 »

dr_dshiv wrote: post #26

> it seems clear that in the absence of the academic publishing industry, scholarship would be more widely available, not less I am thinking of the newspaper industry. Their paywalls didn't work (most of them). Now, there is a lot more news of worse quality. It gives me pause. It almost seems like a near perfect state — a world where Sci-Hub exists and the academic publishing industry. It's like having a thriving rec…

The declining quality of journalism comes from cultural tolerance of bad quality - otherwise, they could just have remained unpublished. In some Countries, newspapers receive public funding yet may not reach thresholds of quality for public use (in many top industrialized countries the press has disappointing international official raking).

Similarly, the interest towards openly accessible research results is public.

Re: A World Without Sci-Hub

#55

Post by frankling_ »

unnah wrote: post #52
frankling_ wrote: post #12

The main issue is that currently there's no way around publishing at the established journals and conferences, because of the reputation they've built up. Funding and career advancement hinge on publications in these venues. If we accept that publishers don't offer much at all in return for the publication fees/library subscription costs (barely any editing, reviewers work pro bono, hosting PDFs is very cheap nowaday…

There are a few cases in which the editorial board of a journal has seen the light, resigned from a traditional publisher, and restarted an essentially equivalent open access journal. It's however hard to see 1) why they would simultaneously continue doing the same job for the for-profit publisher, and 2) why the for-profit publisher would accept it.

1) For the status of being, e.g., editor-in-chief of a well-known journal. 2) I'd expect that they would be opposed, but firing their editors for it would make for interesting headlines.

Re: A World Without Sci-Hub

#56

Post by quantum_magpie »

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?

Nothing.

Re: A World Without Sci-Hub

#57

Post by mach1ne »

OskarS wrote: post #53
mach1ne wrote: post #48

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 becom…

The existence of many high quality open access journals would seem to contradict your theory.

I think it proves my point. Would you rather see your paper featured in Nature or on any open access journal of your choice? Would you trust more on a random article from Nature or an article from any open access journal?

Re: A World Without Sci-Hub

#58

Post by Vinnl »

frankling_ wrote: post #12

The main issue is that currently there's no way around publishing at the established journals and conferences, because of the reputation they've built up. Funding and career advancement hinge on publications in these venues. If we accept that publishers don't offer much at all in return for the publication fees/library subscription costs (barely any editing, reviewers work pro bono, hosting PDFs is very cheap nowaday…

I volunteer for a project [1] where the idea of "cutting out the middle man" is taken even further: removing the journal from the reputation transfer.

So rather than a reviewer lending their reputation to a journal, and that journal then conferring a stamp of trustworthiness onto an academic work, reviewers lend their reputation directly to the works they review. The works themselves can still be shared far and wide, e.g. via ArXiv.

Of course, inertia is still a massive force to work against.

[1] https://plaudit.pub

Re: A World Without Sci-Hub

#60

Post by nefitty »

mandmandam wrote: post #40
mettamage wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's things like this that make me believe that the US isn't a truly free society. It simply pretends it is. But all nations have their problems. The US simply has more than one might think.

More than an American might think maybe. The rest of the world sees America as the numero uno threat to democracy, peace, and stability. And when that fact is pointed out to Americans, with evidence and polls and sources, it makes no impression somehow (in my experience). It's simply incompatible with their programming, and the data is rejected. Try it.

Not sure what your agenda is, but you're clearly ignoring the uniquely fashy things China and Russia are doing.
Post reply on HN