Don't Publish with IEEE (2005)
cr.yp.to
Don't Publish with IEEE (2005)
1–10 of 97 posts
Re: Don't Publish with IEEE (2005)
#2Meta: the linked post is undated, but available on the Wayback Machine as early as November 2005, so a (2005) in the title is warranted and, in any case, this isn't new advice...
Re: Don't Publish with IEEE (2005)
#3Not only is that link really old, the IEEE has their own preprint server now, TechRxiv:
https://innovate.ieee.org/techrxiv_launch/
Everybody should use preprint servers, and TechRxiv deserves more love and attention than it gets.
Re: Don't Publish with IEEE (2005)
#42005
Discussed in 2011: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3051014
Re: Don't Publish with IEEE (2005)
#5Meta: the linked post is undated, but available on the Wayback Machine as early as November 2005, so a (2005) in the title is warranted and, in any case, this isn't new advice...
Last-Modified: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 04:40:39 GMT
Re: Don't Publish with IEEE (2005)
#6[flagged]
Re: Don't Publish with IEEE (2005)
#7Publishing 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 pockets. It's a scam through and through.
Of course one has to examine why this system is still in place. And it's mostly to do with policies in universities, where certain journals/conferences are valued more, and changing that is hard, because e.g. Springer happens to own the name. So we all pay millions to Springer, for the use of this name (that we, together, made great, not Springer), and in return, they charge us the privilege of reading the papers that we reviewed, edited, and wrote. It's insane, but it can't be changed as long as universities refuse to change.
So the hard truth is, it's not Springer/IEEE/Nature/etc, it's ultimately, us.
Re: Don't Publish with IEEE (2005)
#8Not only is that link really old, the IEEE has their own preprint server now, TechRxiv: https://innovate.ieee.org/techrxiv_launch/ Everybody should use preprint servers, and TechRxiv deserves more love and attention than it gets.
I'll go try to answer these for myself, but — using the "both things can be true" argument — I have a couple if follow-up questions:
1. Do they still require transfer of copyright to IEEE?
2. Or, conversely, do they publish public domain articles?
Re: Don't Publish with IEEE (2005)
#9Meta: the linked post is undated, but available on the Wayback Machine as early as November 2005, so a (2005) in the title is warranted and, in any case, this isn't new advice...
Last-Modified: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 04:40:39 GMT
If only browsers cared about making useful infomation available.
Re: Don't Publish with IEEE (2005)
#10Publishing 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…
> Publishing in Academia is a scam
Relatively soon after starting work on my PhD, one of my more-experienced colleagues explained the affect of "impact factor" on academic publishing. Back then I was young and naive, and assumed that at least impact factor itself would be some kind of open system based on freely-available data.
Many years later, I read up on this and discovered Web of Science/Clarivate :(
How is it possible that scientists and academics are gated from the most important metrics based on their own output and by which they measure themselves and are measured by those who fund them?
It's completely nuts.