[HN Gopher] Open Source provided the path to achieve our publish...
___________________________________________________________________
Open Source provided the path to achieve our publishing goals
Author : teleforce
Score : 47 points
Date : 2023-05-29 12:33 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (systemsapproach.substack.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (systemsapproach.substack.com)
| kfogel wrote:
| Did they say _which_ Creative Commons license? I missed it if
| they did. Oh wait, if you click through to the repository you can
| see it: CC-BY-SA.
|
| Good! That's a relief. CC-BY and CC-BY-SA are effectively like
| open source licenses, as is the quasi-license CC0, whereas the
| other CC licenses are not due to restrictions on derivative works
| or on certain kinds of use.
| xhkkffbf wrote:
| I feel like the Wizard of Oz when I tell the scientists: you've
| had this power from the beginning. No one needs to "escape" from
| big publishing. The scientist has always had complete control
| over the work. They own the copyright.
|
| All that big publishing offers is presentation. The reason many
| professors choose traditional journals is because they like how
| the final product looks. Certainly not every reader demands high
| quality typesetting. Nor does every paper require it. It's just
| that the overall product is pretty desirable. That's why people
| keep submitting the papers and dealing with the downsides. It's a
| product that people want.
|
| Now you can complain about the price. It can be steep for people.
| But that money goes to pay for copyediting, typesetting and
| formal archives. These are nothing to sneeze at. Ask a professor
| for a copy of their syllabus from three years ago. I swear that
| half of the people can't find them.
|
| You get what you pay for. Yes, professors can have their grad
| students stay up late fiddling with LaTeX for hours. Yes, there's
| a value in just giving away a copy for free. But there's a reason
| why people overwhelmingly choose journals for their best work.
| hawthornio wrote:
| This is not a great take IMO - The journals choose to use
| publishers not the authors - Publishers do not provide enough
| value to justify their price gouging
| xhkkffbf wrote:
| The publisher creates the journal and brings aboard the
| editor(s). The author then can decide where to submit a paper
| -- or maybe even just distribute it for free on the Internet
| and forgo all of the bureaucracy. The author has ultimate
| control.
|
| Now you might argue that authors need to publish because the
| promotion committee cares. Okay, but again the professors are
| in control. If they don't want to use the journals and their
| filtering pipeline, they can come up with their own way of
| giving out promotions.
| thayne wrote:
| I don't know if it is the case for all journals, but for the
| few papers I submitted to journals, the journal didn't do any
| special typesetting or copyediting. We submitted the LaTeX that
| was basically published as is. The main value of the journal
| was the peer review process.
| xhkkffbf wrote:
| The amount of work that a publisher does varies, but there
| can be quite a bit of typesetting. Naturally, there are some
| lazy, low-rent journals that don't do much. And certainly the
| publishers love it when the author(s) do a great job from the
| beginning. But the layer does something.
| iampims wrote:
| A bit ironic that this is written on substack...
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-05-29 23:01 UTC)