Live data from Hacker News

EU Announces That All Scientific Articles Should Be Freely Accessible by 2020

futurism.com

61–70 of 143 posts

Re: EU Announces That All Scientific Articles Should Be Freely Accessible by 2020

#62
post #28
post #7

*European Union

Just wait till you see how many people use "America" when they mean "The United States of America".

And the incessant complaints from Spanish speakers about how this is inaccurate and unfair.

Re: EU Announces That All Scientific Articles Should Be Freely Accessible by 2020

#63
post #9

Great change! Makes me proud of european institutions.

Really? That's all it takes? With all of the bungling in recent years, they have a long way to go before "pride" and "European institutions" can appear in the same sentence. You should also think through the full consequences of this move. The idea of free papers is nice, but it's not a fairy tale victory of good over evil. Also, political motives are worth considering. Science in the EU, given what it is, may wish to become more competitive in the face of American science and attract collaboration in more or less the same way open source and free software has.

Re: EU Announces That All Scientific Articles Should Be Freely Accessible by 2020

#64

Although I did not contribute to anything of this, it makes me a proud European. :) I wonder if the US will follow suits when/if this happens. Any thoughts? --- Edit: maybe it would be better to link to the original source instead [ http://futurism.com/eu-announces-that-all-european-scientifi... ].

Thanks, we've updated the link from http://www.sciencealert.com/europe-announces-that-all-scient..., which points to this.

Re: EU Announces That All Scientific Articles Should Be Freely Accessible by 2020

#65
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just wait till you see how many people use "America" when they mean "The United States of America".

Yes, but America is not a reference to a continent. That would be North America or South America. (I suppose you could call the super continent just "America" but most call it "The Americas" instead.) Clearly the term "America" either disambiguates to a continent or a country, and most assume the country. "Europe," on the other hand, really is a continent, so the term has a completely different meaning than the EU, a…

> Yes, but America is not a reference to a continent

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americas

"The Americas, also collectively called America"... In many languages America is the continent.

Re: EU Announces That All Scientific Articles Should Be Freely Accessible by 2020

#67
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but America is not a reference to a continent. That would be North America or South America. (I suppose you could call the super continent just "America" but most call it "The Americas" instead.) Clearly the term "America" either disambiguates to a continent or a country, and most assume the country. "Europe," on the other hand, really is a continent, so the term has a completely different meaning than the EU, a…

> Yes, but America is not a reference to a continent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americas "The Americas, also collectively called America"... In many languages America is the continent.

And while that is an option, like I mentioned, it's not the most common one.

The wikipedia link to America, redirects to the United States of America: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America

And in the description of the United States of America: The United States of America (USA), commonly referred to as the United States (U.S.) or America

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States

Also see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America_(disambiguation)

"America is a short-form name for the United States of America."

Re: EU Announces That All Scientific Articles Should Be Freely Accessible by 2020

#68
Because I don't generally believe altruism is a thing in politics, the majority of the article is just fluff and smoke. Scientific literacy? What a crock. Scientific papers aren't for boosting the kind of basic scientific literacy the links to. They are generally written for an already literate audience (putting aside the poor quality of a great deal of science and scientific papers). The overriding pragmatic motive here is hinted at in the following sentence:

"Ultimately, this decision comes as a result of a meeting by the Competitiveness Council,which includes the ministers of Science, Innovation, Trade, and Industry."

EU science, being what it is, needs to be more competitive. One way to become competitive in the face American or even Japanese competition is to take the open source/free software route and make research freely available. This makes the research more accessible, unburdens relatively poor European universities from having to pay expensive journal memberships, increases the ability of EU institutions to collaborate, and allows the EU to attract collaborators from abroad by removing financial thresholds. And because science in the US has stronger ties to industry, it plays an important role in determining the economic prowess of the US. Poor entrepreneurs can also benefit from the move. The EU is likely aiming in a similar direction (though I personally know members of European academia who dislike the collaboration between academia and industry).

Re: EU Announces That All Scientific Articles Should Be Freely Accessible by 2020

#69
post #56
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It does however provide a limit on how much money each publisher can extract from a paper. Why should we accept publishers to decide on what this limit should be? Currently it can be as high as $5000. For hosting a PDF. This is a total waste of (mostly public) money. > It also makes free or cheaper services more competitive. No because as long as we permit to those publishers to exists and exercise their copyrights…

> Why should we accept publishers to decide on what this limit should be? Currently it can be as high as $5000. For hosting a PDF. This is a total waste of (mostly public) money. I'm not sure there's a good way of limiting how much companies are allowed to charge for a service. What the funding bodies can do, however, is limit the amount of money in a grant that can be spent on publishing costs. That's far easier. >…

> I'm not sure there's a good way of limiting how much companies are allowed to charge for a service.

That of course depends on one's subjective notion of "good". There are multiple ways of doing it. I like the one you suggest if the amount we are talking about is a round zero.

> I'm also not sure what you're suggesting with "exercise their copyrights on prestigious journal title".

If the members of a journal's scientific board decide they want to go full real open access (with no costs for readers nor authors), they have to abandon to name of the journal and the associated impact factor and reputation that they build together with their work over the years, because the publisher owns the journal even though it is the board members who did all the work (as part of their job as researchers, paid by the state or a uni for example, not by the publisher).

That's one of the reseaons why the movement for open access and the movement against the use of bibliometrics should unite.

Thanks for the disclaimer.

Re: EU Announces That All Scientific Articles Should Be Freely Accessible by 2020

#70
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, improvements in search will help, but the costs won't go down that easily. In Google's case, the initial seeding of page rank was quite manual. And then think of the cost of upkeep - people are trying to game search engines continuously, Google has to update its algorithms on a consistent basis, content farms have profited enormously at various points of time and needed to be literally programmed against, and fi…

Well, you could always look at citations. And I don't think they are as easy to game as links between general websites, because in research at least the authors publish using their own names (and you don't want to get a bad rep for gaming the system).

With the disclaimer that this is an anecdote and not data:

You would be surprised at how easily a winners win situation happens in research. The citation based search would reinforce it. And while the gaming may not be search engine focused, I think getting the best papers via algorithmic methods can omit the crown jewels through less insidious (but quite common) issues such as citation graphs which orient in the direction of the flow of funding.

But you say, maybe winners win for a reason. This is only personal experience, but the single most profound, creative paper I ever read during my years of research was written by a lone wolf (i.e. no collaborators) in a somewhat unknown institution who turned out to be a sort of one hit wonder. This person's h-index may very well have been exactly 1 at that time. I honestly think algorithmic methods of searching for literature would have skipped past that paper.

You could make the case, though, that a thorough literature survey should be as exhaustive as possible and not omit ANYTHING. Well, very few people are that thorough - and even when they are, there is a tendency of reading papers from the most popular authors first. I am just glad I did my work before the days of Google Scholar becoming the de facto starting point, and I did not have the bias of a pre-ranked list.

I think that is the actual fear: I was able to find this crown jewel precisely because the publishing process at that period was more centralized (although quite likely also less competitive), and that paper was eventually published at a pre-eminent conference - which is how it came to my attention. With a search-engine driven open access, I think this lone wolf would have had a harder time getting that fantastic piece of work in front of a big audience because many of the common signals would have been too weak.

With all that said, when open access becomes more pervasive, great search technology will be a big part of the cost reduction and I definitely look forward to that.

Post reply on HN