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

81–90 of 97 posts

Re: Don't Publish with IEEE (2005)

#81

Post by smsm42 »

coliveira wrote: post #78
smsm42 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it is not. There's nothing in the capitalist model that mandates academic community to maintain a zero-valued-add gatekeepers. It's just an extremely lazy dunk, which happens each time somebody discusses any rent-seeker setup - somebody comes out of the woodwork and proclaims "oh, it's because of capitalism!". In a very very very dumb sense it is - like the reason of crime is that people are breathing. If they did…

To avoid the rent seeking you need a state that will enforce laws that prohibit the rent seeking process and revert it when it has formed. This is not compatible with free market capitalism in abstract (being against the freedom of capitalist agents), and in practice it cannot be done because the capitalists will use political power to stop it.

It is one pissible solution - just as one possible solution for theft is abolishing private property. If there's no property, nobody could steal anything. But it's not the only solution. There are many other ways - such as not employing the services of rent seekers, for example - that do not require government involvement. In some markets, this solution is blocked - usually by, guess what, goverment regulations - but as far as I can see, no goverment forces academia to elevate Elseveir to its pedestal.

Re: Don't Publish with IEEE (2005)

#82

Post by coliveira »

smsm42 wrote: post #77
coliveira wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you truly believe that capitalism is the best way to "live in free and democratic countries", then you should welcome what Elsevier and others are doing, because that is a direct consequence of their "freedom" to pursue profits.

No I should not. That's like saying if I support free speech, I must welcome lying and insulting others. Supporting free speech means allowing people to speak without being persecuted, but that does not mean I must value all speech equally. Both myself and the society still can pass value judgement and value different kinds of speech differently. Same with business conduct - the fact that this conduct is not explicit…

> people decided to behave in ways that allow Elsevier to rent-seek

Your liberal ideology results in a confusion about what it means to rent-seek. This is possible only if people have no way to escape the rent. Elsevier and other companies do this by restricting the freedom of readers, since the publisher has a monopoly of access to scientific publications. It is not a matter of user behavior, since scientists cannot choose to ignore published research. The only other option available is breaking the law.

Re: Don't Publish with IEEE (2005)

#83

Post by coliveira »

littlestymaar wrote: post #75
coliveira wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you truly believe that capitalism is the best way to "live in free and democratic countries", then you should welcome what Elsevier and others are doing, because that is a direct consequence of their "freedom" to pursue profits.

I never said it's the best, it's actually pretty bad at it (and if you re-read what I've written, you'd see that I consider Capitalism to be a form of totalitarianism). It's just arguably miles ahead of the alternatives that currently exist…

If you truly considered capitalism a form of totalitarianism, you wouldn't be advocating for it, nor suggesting that people who love democracy would be interested in such a system.

Re: Don't Publish with IEEE (2005)

#84

Post by smsm42 »

coliveira wrote: post #82
smsm42 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No I should not. That's like saying if I support free speech, I must welcome lying and insulting others. Supporting free speech means allowing people to speak without being persecuted, but that does not mean I must value all speech equally. Both myself and the society still can pass value judgement and value different kinds of speech differently. Same with business conduct - the fact that this conduct is not explicit…

> people decided to behave in ways that allow Elsevier to rent-seek Your liberal ideology results in a confusion about what it means to rent-seek. This is possible only if people have no way to escape the rent. Elsevier and other companies do this by restricting the freedom of readers, since the publisher has a monopoly of access to scientific publications. It is not a matter of user behavior, since scientists cannot…

Scientists can choose to publish in open access journals though. But they don't.

Re: Don't Publish with IEEE (2005)

#85

Post by sizzle »

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…

You forgot Elsevier in your list

Re: Don't Publish with IEEE (2005)

#86

Post by littlestymaar »

coliveira wrote: post #83
littlestymaar wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I never said it's the best, it's actually pretty bad at it (and if you re-read what I've written, you'd see that I consider Capitalism to be a form of totalitarianism). It's just arguably miles ahead of the alternatives that currently exist…

If you truly considered capitalism a form of totalitarianism, you wouldn't be advocating for it, nor suggesting that people who love democracy would be interested in such a system.

Maybe you should try understanding the comments you respond to before jumping to conclusions, just saying.

Re: Don't Publish with IEEE (2005)

#87

Post by michaelmior »

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…

I agree that the value is primarily given by the peers. However, someone needs to coordinate the process. That said, while I can understand viewing it as free labor, it is often (indirectly) part of the job description of faculty members.

Re: Don't Publish with IEEE (2005)

#88

Post by michaelmior »

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…

I am an academic who spends a nontrivial amount of time reviewing papers. My experience has been that the platforms used for submitting reviews are perfectly fine. Often outdated, sure, but I've never really found this to be a significant barrier. I would personally find it more challenging to manage reviews via email.

Re: Don't Publish with IEEE (2005)

#89

Post by michaelmior »

fanf2 wrote: post #30
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 is done for free by academics. The publisher does not contribute to peer review.

The publisher does often assist with coordinating the peer review process which is a nontrivial task. I'm not saying this in itself necessitates everything else surrounding the publishing ecosystem, but I don't think it's accurate to say the publisher does not contribute.

Re: Don't Publish with IEEE (2005)

#90

Post by coliveira »

smsm42 wrote: post #84
coliveira wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people decided to behave in ways that allow Elsevier to rent-seek Your liberal ideology results in a confusion about what it means to rent-seek. This is possible only if people have no way to escape the rent. Elsevier and other companies do this by restricting the freedom of readers, since the publisher has a monopoly of access to scientific publications. It is not a matter of user behavior, since scientists cannot…

Scientists can choose to publish in open access journals though. But they don't.

No, scientists in general don't choose the journals they publish on. They publish in the journals that accept the kind of research they do and frequently there is no open access option. Even if there is, your paper may not be accepted there, so you need to apply to the next available option.
Post reply on HN