[HN Gopher] Japan's push to make all research open access
___________________________________________________________________
Japan's push to make all research open access
Author : sohkamyung
Score : 633 points
Date : 2024-05-31 01:46 UTC (21 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.nature.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.nature.com)
| worthless-trash wrote:
| This could be the start of something beautiful.
| koolala wrote:
| Internet Noodles of Babel! Let's have every corporation do this
| too! We can solve every problem that matters by working together
| like this, the rest is just corpo-gaming.
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| Absolutely! I think the concept of proprietary knowledge for
| profit was actually a huge mistake, and that humanity can
| advance much faster and more effectively through open
| collaboration. This applies to patents too (and arguably
| copyright).
| jrhey wrote:
| There is no advancement without profit. Advances are a
| product of market competition. When no company can profit
| from investing in R&D, there will be no R&D.
| __loam wrote:
| What a sad view of things.
| koolala wrote:
| Hi, I feel more advanced getting to talk with you so I am
| grateful for that, didn't cost us anything :)
| anigbrowl wrote:
| Pfffffft
| immibis wrote:
| The government invented the internet.
| waihtis wrote:
| with money that came from ......?
| immibis wrote:
| Nonsensical question. You invent things with brainpower,
| not money.
| waihtis wrote:
| Try going without food for a month and see how many novel
| inventions you can make. See, even thoughts require
| participation in the capital markets.
| jrhey wrote:
| Some life saving pharmaceuticals, automobiles tech,
| general consumer communications and entertainment tech,
| all come from capitalists trying to be the first to
| market to profit. The sheer amount of technological leaps
| our generation alone has seen was all pretty much for
| profit. You wouldn't observe the same rate if it was all
| purely driven by governments.
| klysm wrote:
| This would be amazing to see in the US. Unfortunately I feel like
| lobbying is too powerful with the death grip publishers have. If
| you were to do a popular vote, it would be nearly unanimous I
| expect.
| karaterobot wrote:
| > The United States also implemented an OA mandate in 2022 that
| requires all research funded by US taxpayers to be freely
| available from 2026.
| pkaye wrote:
| If you read the article it mentions that US implemented an OA
| mandate in 2022.
|
| > The plan follows in the footsteps of the influential Plan S,
| introduced six years ago by a group of research funders in the
| United States and Europe known as cOAlition S, to accelerate
| the move to OA publishing. The United States also implemented
| an OA mandate in 2022 that requires all research funded by US
| taxpayers to be freely available from 2026.
| jfkfif wrote:
| DOE already mandates this
| karaterobot wrote:
| > it also said that it would invest 10 billion yen (around US$63
| million) to standardize institutional repositories -- websites
| dedicated to hosting scientific papers, their underlying data and
| other materials -- ensuring that there will be a mechanism for
| making research in Japan open.
|
| The important part isn't necessarily the papers, it's getting
| access to the data. I'll note that the hurdle for open access is
| not a lack of support from funders or from the government, it's
| from researchers. Researchers want everybody's else's data, but
| they don't want to give their data to anybody else, because they
| want to be the ones to publish on it. It's IP. It can take years
| to get access to a dataset, because the owners throw every
| obstacle in your way, and drag their feet as much as possible--it
| makes cancelling a gym membership look easy. And I am speaking
| about projects where open access is written into the funding as a
| requirement.
|
| My point is that I'd be interested to know what data governance
| processes they're putting in place if all the data is being
| consolidated into a single system, as the article says it is.
| Staple_Diet wrote:
| I recall a paper that sought to explore how willing authors
| were to release data when they had published open access and
| stated 'data available on request'. Iirc it was below 50% that
| responded with data. See related here;
| https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/jbu9r/
|
| That being said, there are also issues with opening the gates
| to anyone to get your data and use it to publish;
| https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
|
| My data is OA, but I'd appreciate any one wanting to use to
| first reach out and discuss any nuances that may influence
| their analysis.
| FredPret wrote:
| There should be some academic reward for just gathering quality
| data
| tkgally wrote:
| Last year, my employer, the University of Tokyo, became the first
| Japanese university to sign the Declaration on Research
| Assessment (DORA) [1]. Like open access, that initiative is a
| positive move toward a better research environment, and it would
| be great if more institutions committed to it.
|
| [1] https://sfdora.org/
| staunton wrote:
| Did this change anything about how research is conducted?
| tkgally wrote:
| Good question. It's probably too early to tell.
|
| By signing DORA, the university leadership has stated support
| for a principle about how hiring and promotion decisions
| should be made. But it may take a few years before that
| principle is fully absorbed by the faculty committees who
| actually evaluate candidates.
| lieblingautor wrote:
| Sounds great, hope it will inspire its neighboring countries to
| take a similar initiative.
| swader999 wrote:
| Imagine if this was so advantageous that a large portion of the
| rest of the world got pulled into it. Interesting times.
| a_bonobo wrote:
| Australia already has a similar system: if the research is funded
| by a national funder, then the pre-publisher version has to be
| deposited at the institute's research repository (basically the
| Word/PDF file you sent to the publisher, before they add their
| copyrighted formatting).
|
| I'd judge the success so/so: it's barely enforced, librarians
| will remind you if you didn't upload one paper, but it's not like
| there's any consequences. It's also about the text of the paper,
| not about the associated data. And these repositories are
| generally built by for-profit providers and aren't exactly open:
| I know for a fact that my Google Scholar profile does not link to
| the institute's repository, papers in there are barely findable.
|
| it also doesn't change how researchers are evaluated, so the
| eternal rat-race to get into Nature/Science etc. continues, with
| all the associated problems.
|
| We've had this system for years now and it feels like it barely
| made a blip.
|
| >Seiichi says that gold OA -- in which the final copyedited and
| polished version of a paper is made freely available on the
| journal site -- is not feasible on a wide scale. That's because
| the cost to make every paper free to read would be too high for
| universities.
|
| One should note that this isn't too expensive because of
| associated costs: it's that the for-profit publishers keep
| ratcheting up the cost. Nature-group journals now take more than
| ten grand in OA fees per paper, which is not justified by any
| associated cost. They're typesetting a PDF and hosting it for ten
| grand a PDF.
| kergonath wrote:
| > Australia already has a similar system: if the research is
| funded by a national funder, then the pre-publisher version has
| to be deposited at the institute's research repository
| (basically the Word/PDF file you sent to the publisher, before
| they add their copyrighted formatting).
|
| It's more or less the same in the UK and France as well.
|
| > I'd judge the success so/so: it's barely enforced, librarians
| will remind you if you didn't upload one paper, but it's not
| like there's any consequences.
|
| IIRC in the UK it does not count in the national performance
| assessment it if is not in an open repository.
|
| > It's also about the text of the paper, not about the
| associated data.
|
| Yeah. Data is a big problem. There are many different types
| that cannot be handled just like a pdf (tons of files in the
| same dataset, huge archives and everything in between). It's a
| huge lot of storage space, the vast majority of which will
| never be even accessed, never mind used. I've been part of
| several initiatives and it is not easy to set up.
|
| > And these repositories are generally built by for-profit
| providers and aren't exactly open: I know for a fact that my
| Google Scholar profile does not link to the institute's
| repository, papers in there are barely findable.
|
| That's a damn shame. The British government is doing a lot of
| things right with their open access policy, but a thing that
| works quite well in France is that there is a single national
| repository ( https://hal.science : it voild be better indexed
| but it does show up on Google Scholar) and everyone uses it.
| This is the sort of things that makes sense at the national
| level. A myriad of small repositories on obscure university
| websites is not very helpful. That way it also does not depend
| on the (possible lack of) willingness of individual
| institutions to fund it and do it properly.
|
| > it also doesn't change how researchers are evaluated, so the
| eternal rat-race to get into Nature/Science etc. continues,
| with all the associated problems.
|
| If we're really serious about open access, only articles in a
| public repository should count. All the legal issues there used
| to be were cleared up, the infrastructure is there (things like
| arxiv can be used as a last resort for governments or
| institutions that won't get their ducks in a row). The issue is
| really lack of good will.
| 9dev wrote:
| Theoretically, something like a national OPDS feed would be
| perfect for this: OPDS is a publication distribution feed
| protocol that allows to include other sub-feeds, making for a
| distributed tree structure. A country could publish a
| collection of individual university feeds, which in turn
| linked to the papers of their researchers.
| dguest wrote:
| This means that journals can't _prevent_ you from uploading a
| preprint though. A few publishers do this [1]. Even if the
| upload isn 't enforced it means the restriction can't be
| either.
|
| But it's odd that the paper must be in the institute's
| repository and not one of a larger list of preprint servers. I
| would assume the authors would much rather put a paper on arXiv
| than on their shoddy university repository.
|
| [1]:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_academic_publishers_by...
| a_bonobo wrote:
| Having submitted to biorxiv before many times: oh yeah!!! the
| ease of submission there is second to none. For-profit
| publishers' submission process is an overcomplicated pile in
| comparison.
| gigatexal wrote:
| I support this 100%. All publicly funded research even in the
| least bit should be public. Shwartz would be proud.
| surfingdino wrote:
| Playing the Devil's advocate for a sec, I'd ask the public if
| it is prepared to fund hosting on those publications in
| perpetuity? And to answer my own question, I think we should
| demand that scientific papers are made available for free by
| publicly-funded scientific libraries.
| gigatexal wrote:
| The library of Congress could host it. Hell I'd ask for my
| taxes to be raised if needed to host these publications for
| everyone.
| jfkfif wrote:
| osti.gov
| whimsicalism wrote:
| > I'd ask the public if it is prepared to fund hosting on
| those publications in perpetuity
|
| are we pretending pdf hosting is actually costly or what? the
| devil should hire better advocates
| gumbojuice wrote:
| I could imagine a problem here in India, where there is no
| funding for publishing papers, especially for graduate students.
| thisisjaymehta wrote:
| Exactly, but government is doing its best to boost R&D, what
| matters more is private funding for R&D. Big companies like
| Reliance, TATA and Adani should setup research labs in
| universities and colleges.
| 2Gkashmiri wrote:
| what do you mean?
| low_tech_love wrote:
| The term "open access" is misleading and carefully engineered to
| generate good will, when in fact it should be termed "pay to
| publish" (as argued quite nicely by Brian McGill [1]). As it
| stands today, OA is mostly a public money sink, a big scheme to
| drain public money from European countries. Not only are we
| paying a ridiculous, ungodly amount of money for people to host
| PDFs on a website, but the entire idea of publishers competing
| for the quality of their research output (in order to get
| submissions) has also basically been eradicated and turned
| meaningless. Reviewers are pushed to accept papers instead of
| rejecting them, because a rejected paper makes no money, and now
| we are left with a deluge of noise that passes for scientific
| literature. I sincerely pity the PhD student who needs to run a
| serious, systematic literature review in 2024. Hell sounds more
| attractive.
|
| If you want open access, ditch the publishers and fund volunteer
| expert communities to edit and publish their own papers. You
| can't have the cake and eat it too.
|
| [1] https://dynamicecology.wordpress.com/2024/04/29/the-state-
| of...
| WarOnPrivacy wrote:
| Headline: _Japan 's push to make all research open access_
|
| > The term "open access" is misleading and carefully engineered
| to generate good will, when in fact it should be termed "pay to
| publish". [1]
|
| [1] Seems to be about how OA is done in countries that aren't
| Japan.
| tmalsburg2 wrote:
| Japan's initiative is focused on "green open access" which is
| different from pay-to-publish. I recommend the section titled
| "Green OA" in the submitted article. Relevant quote:
|
| "Japan's move to greater access to its research is focusing on
| 'green OA' -- in which authors make the author-accepted, but
| unfinalized, versions of papers available in the digital
| repositories, says Seiichi.
|
| Seiichi says that gold OA -- in which the final copyedited and
| polished version of a paper is made freely available on the
| journal site -- is not feasible on a wide scale. That's because
| the cost to make every paper free to read would be too high for
| universities."
| low_tech_love wrote:
| Green OA is just as meaningless as---or worse than---Gold OA.
| You pay the publisher a large sum of money for the "right" to
| self-publish the preprint, and they _still_ paywall it. The
| vast majority of people will find the paywalled version
| before yours, and anyway there is no guarantee that your
| preprint is accurate with the final, published version, so
| most people will still trust the paywalled version more than
| your PDF. Especially when performing systematic literature
| reviews where you need to document the sources of your
| references.
|
| The current implementation of OA (any of them) is basically a
| self-fulfilling prophecy: we convinced ourselves that
| "publishers are evil" and impossible to get rid of, and now
| we are paying them so that they don't have to do their job.
| We basically retired publishers early with an extra pension,
| all because everyone "wants to believe" in open access. But
| guess what? This is not disruptive. OA is just as "capitalist
| evil" as the usual publishing, or even more so. Do you want
| to be disruptive? The disrupt. Get rid of the publishers. Or
| at least constrain funding only to not-for-profits for
| example.
| shellac wrote:
| > You pay the publisher a large sum of money for the
| "right" to self-publish the preprint, and they still
| paywall it
|
| There's no APC with Green OA, so what money are you talking
| about? Green OA is regular publishing, but with self
| archiving. There will be a version freely available, and
| the publishers aren't paid for that privilege.
|
| If you want a route to the death of publishers, green OA is
| a promising one.
|
| (I think the headline ought to emphasise that this is
| pushing green OA, which is the interesting bit)
| low_tech_love wrote:
| I've had to pay for the option to publish my preprints in
| a couple of CS journals. I'll look into that.
| shellac wrote:
| Ah, I somewhat see the confusion. Green OA doesn't
| require the publisher to publish other versions for free,
| it just means you are allowed to publish them. Typically
| you'd publish them via an institutional repository,
| preprint server (often discipline specific), or in one of
| a number of free online services.
| kome wrote:
| "Green OA is just as meaningless as---or worse than---Gold
| OA. You pay the publisher a large sum of money for the
| "right" to self-publish the preprint"
|
| that's not how it works. you don't pay anything.
| low_tech_love wrote:
| That's not what I experienced in the past, at least not
| with IEEE (I stopped caring after a while).
| radford-neal wrote:
| "there is no guarantee that your preprint is accurate with
| the final, published version, so most people will still
| trust the paywalled version more than your PDF"
|
| I think this is backwards. The definitive version that
| should be cited is the freely-available one, since that is
| the version that everyone can read. No one should cite the
| paywalled version.
| cherryteastain wrote:
| >in which authors make the author-accepted, but unfinalized,
| versions of papers available in the digital repositories
|
| This is already the case, almost wveryone puts the preprints
| on arxiv/SSRN
| mcbuilder wrote:
| That's true for most recent AI/ML work, but hardly true for
| all of research.
| cherryteastain wrote:
| I think it applies to most STEM fields. I'm a reviewer
| for several journals in a STEM field (not AI/ML
| specifically, but some manuscripts do try to apply AI/ML
| to this field) and the vast majority of authors seem to
| upload their preprints to arxiv etc.
|
| Social sciences may be behind though as you say, I do not
| know as I'm not in that field.
| jfkfif wrote:
| Econ has a big working paper culture
| ants_everywhere wrote:
| As someone with graduate degrees in both STEM (math) and
| social science (psychology) fields, it's true that social
| science is way behind STEM in terms of preprints to
| digital archives. It's possible there's momentum here in
| the last 5 or so years that I'm unaware of though.
|
| That matters for a few reasons:
|
| (1) the average person more frequently encounters
| psychological, social and medical issues more than they
| do math problems. And since the research in those fields
| tends to be pay walled, people are at the mercy of things
| like SEO spam medical and health sites.
|
| (2) wrong ideas in medicine or psychology can (and have
| in the past) damaged entire generations of people. So in
| that sense their blast radius can be very large. This
| means that peer review is especially important and that
| there's a potential negative externality to posting
| preprints and drafts before they're finalized. I suspect
| we'd have to solve the peer review and quality problem
| before STEM-style preprint archives become the norms in
| all fields.
| alephnerd wrote:
| > I think it applies to most STEM fields
|
| Much of the medical and life sciences space does not
| publish on Arxiv or OA platforms.
|
| It's slowly changing with Green OA initiatives being
| pushed by government donors, but not there yet.
|
| > Social sciences may be behind though as you say
|
| Econ, a lot of PoliSci, Finance/Business, and
| Computational Linguistics was very early on the
| OA/Working Paper movement.
| cherryteastain wrote:
| Isn't biorxiv quite popular?
| alephnerd wrote:
| For Bioengineering it definetly is, but a lot of Medicine
| is still locked behind high impact Wiley and Sage
| publications, and for a lot of that research it's fairly
| easy to pay the $3-4k to make the article open access.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| Not true at all for bio and medical science in
| particular. (yes biorxiv exists but it is not most
| papers)
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| It's also true for biological research (bioxriv)
| consp wrote:
| > That's because the cost to make every paper free to read
| would be too high for universities.
|
| That's just bs. They can make a law fixing that for free but
| won't. It's not can, but will which is the problem.
| low_tech_love wrote:
| The truth is that OA is a childish illusion that got
| "absorbed" by the adults in the room who tapped the kids on
| their back and said "no worries, we'll take it from here".
| Then they turned traditional publishing, which was already
| an elaborate expensive ruse, into OA which is an even more
| expensive (but less elaborate) ruse. Now everyone is happy,
| except someone trying to do actual research and having to
| read 1000 meaningless papers a day.
| 2Gkashmiri wrote:
| https://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/
|
| india's research repository. all phd thesis and everything is
| here.
| 9dev wrote:
| You got to love India's ability to pick the most
| indiscoverable domain names possible for their projects...
| datpiff wrote:
| It's almost as if they're speaking a different language
| carlob wrote:
| or 22
| tugberkk wrote:
| same here in Turkey. https://dergipark.org.tr/en has a lot of
| journals free of access. One can also find the phd and msc
| thesis too in
| https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/giris.jsp
| xvilka wrote:
| It would be nice to make a simple website that will list
| those repositories in easily discoverable way per country.
| Something akin to "Awesome Research" list.
| tokai wrote:
| McGill and you got it backwards. Open Access has a quite clear
| definition.[0] Publishers have co-opeded the term and dopne
| everything to confuse the issue. All the so-called open access
| colours are mainly publisher made, to water down the true OA
| definition.
|
| [0] https://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read/
| low_tech_love wrote:
| Sure, but none of that matters if the big publishers are the
| ones gobbling up the money anyway. For some reason it's
| better to pay them a ridiculous amount of money to host PDFs
| than it is to pay for subscriptions? What's the difference?
| Most university libraries have always had access to all the
| important journals and anyone can go there and do their
| research. The whole idea that subscription is evil and OA is
| good is ludicrous. We're paying the same amount of money (or
| more) only to get a much, much shittier service, and a
| torrent of absolute meaningless "research" that only serves
| to drown out the good ones.
|
| PS: And by the way, if you say that "not every country has
| access to these libraries" then think about whether they have
| money to pay for APCs.
| sharpshadow wrote:
| It's a shame that the public has to pay twice. Tax money pays
| it in the first place and then we have to pay for it again..
| DiogenesKynikos wrote:
| > Reviewers are pushed to accept papers instead of rejecting
| them, because a rejected paper makes no money
|
| Prestigious journals have very low (single-digit percentage)
| acceptance rates.
|
| One or two rungs down, the standard domain-specific journals
| are still rigorous, and you need to do substantial work to get
| published in them. It's a hurdle that any decent graduate
| student with a good advisor can pass, but it's not as if you
| can just write anything and get published.
|
| There are junk journals that will publish anything, but I don't
| think scientists generally pay much attention to those
| journals.
|
| > I sincerely pity the PhD student who needs to run a serious,
| systematic literature review in 2024. Hell sounds more
| attractive.
|
| Doing a literature review is not that difficult. You begin with
| a few highly cited papers. Then you look at what papers they
| reference in the intro. You also look at the list of papers
| that cite them and sort by the number of citations. You can
| work in both directions and pretty quickly establish what the
| important papers in the field are.
|
| Notice that the important thing here is to look at citations.
| Getting a paper into a journal is only the first, most basic
| step. Peer review is only an initial quality check. Over time,
| other scientists decide what papers are important and cite
| them. If a paper racks up 100 citations, that means a lot more
| than just passing peer review.
| rscho wrote:
| You are not describing a _systematic_ literature review.
| Systematic reviews are hell indeed, at least in non-STEM
| fields.
| low_tech_love wrote:
| > There are junk journals that will publish anything, but I
| don't think scientists generally pay much attention to those
| journals.
|
| Yes, but the point is not that the good journals are not
| there, it's that the good ones are drowned out by the
| absolute humongous amount of garbage that comes out every
| day. If you do research you know that it's not so simple like
| "oh I only read papers from journals X and Y". Good research
| comes out everywhere, and if you don't cite it people (I mean
| reviewers, if you can call them that) will complain, and
| anyway you'll be putting yourself in a bubble which is bad
| practice. It used to be that journals would do the work for
| you to separate good from bad research, but nowadays it's on
| the researcher to dig through 1000 papers to find a single
| good one. It's ridiculous and meaningless. If we're paying
| them and making them rich, at least I'd expect them to do
| their job.
| mfld wrote:
| I don't get it. Ditching publishers to fund expert communities?
| Shouldn't there be some form of organisation that connects
| those experts, selects some as journal editors, provides
| infrastructure for submission/review/paper access, etc? If yes,
| wouldn't "publisher" be suitable term for such an organisation?
|
| There exist publishers that, instead of being part of big media
| outlets, a run by research organizations themselves (e.g. EMBO
| press). I agree that it would be nice if more would be
| published there.
| low_tech_love wrote:
| I mean in the same way communities organize conferences
| regularly without becoming publishers. Anyway if you want to
| call them publishers fine, as long as they are not giant
| behemoths who feed on large amounts of public money to do
| nothing.
|
| At least when publishing was an actual market (instead of
| being just a money sink) the publishers had to actually do
| their job to survive.
| impendia wrote:
| I am a mathematics researcher. I agree with most of what you
| say, but
|
| > Reviewers are pushed to accept papers instead of rejecting
| them, because a rejected paper makes no money
|
| The only pressure I ever get is from _editors_ (i.e., other
| mathematicians, who make all the final decisions), if I 'm
| taking too long and they want me to hurry up.
|
| If a representative of the _publisher_ attempted to pressure me
| for _any_ reason, then my response would be less than polite.
|
| Occasionally I have gotten review requests from "pay to
| publish" journals which will publish pretty much anything, and
| which don't have any credibility within the math community.
| These, I simply delete as spam.
| rscho wrote:
| Just occasionally? I get at least 3-4 of those daily! They've
| become seriously annoying, and confused senior professors
| around me often fall into the trap.
| low_tech_love wrote:
| I reject the invitations too, but the fact is that they
| exist, there are (many) people who do them, the papers are
| published, they come up in searches, and the whole thing
| becomes a muddy mess.
|
| Most people say "we'll just don't read/cite them" but the
| fact is that there is no clear red line; it's all foggy. In
| order to look at a paper and say "I will not read you because
| you are crap" you need to spend some time with it, and if you
| have 2000 of them, that translates to a lot of wasted time.
| The reason why journals are supposed to do serious peer
| review was exactly so that we don't have to do it ourselves.
| abdullahkhalids wrote:
| It's possible for pressure to exist at a higher level. The
| editor simply stops asking reviews from people who reject
| papers above some threshold rate. Or at even a higher level,
| the journal replaces the editor who maintains a too low an
| acceptance rate.
|
| These pressures are harder to notice, without population
| level data.
| norswap wrote:
| In CS, it's widely accepted that you can publish your "drafts"
| publicly. Basically just the real deal without the notices of
| publication (I guess maybe legally you have to leave some
| differences in? I never bothered, and I doubt the publishers
| who everyone kinda hates would dare creating this kind of
| controversy).
|
| As others have pointed out, some countries mandate national or
| institutional repositories.
|
| A good grassroots way out of this is educating researchers to
| always take one of these options. Let publishers overplay their
| hand and get crushed.
|
| Of course, it would be nicer if regulators realized how
| ridiculous this all is and crushed them without the need for
| public outcry, but one may dream.
| contrarian1234 wrote:
| When I published with an Elsevier journal they explained the
| "draft" thing pretty clearly. They said you retain copyright
| on whatever you write yourself. But once you have reviewer
| feedback and incorporate feedback from the journal editor(s)
| then it's no longer entirely your work and you couldn't
| distribute it at your own will. You could pay the journal a
| huge amount of money (in effect for the work done by the
| editors), and then the paper would be open access. The fees
| might not be reasonable (it's kind of hard to judge) but the
| overall logic made sense to me
|
| So the first draft before review - the one you wrote all on
| your own - is what you can put up online. I'm not in CS but I
| assume the logic is similar in other fields.
|
| They also provided a separate link of the final published PDF
| that you could use to distribute the paper to colleagues and
| interested parties. This link worked for a sufficiently long
| period of X amount of days/months. After that it was
| paywalled and in their garden
| gbnvc wrote:
| No, you can invent this idea that open access is a boogeyman,
| but it's flat out corporate lies. This is free speech. I'm
| allowed to say I think a statement is untrustworthy.
| pessimizer wrote:
| > OA is mostly a public money sink, a big scheme to drain
| public money from European countries. Not only are we paying a
| ridiculous, ungodly amount of money for people to host PDFs on
| a website
|
| This is a choice that European countries are making that has
| nothing to do with open access. You can always choose to
| overpay well-connected insider contractors to accomplish any of
| the functions of government.
| davidparks21 wrote:
| I struggle with this question. The editor plays a valuable role
| and it's not hard to swallow the argument that editors make
| science better, they're the front line filter. Employing them
| full time is a core value that the current system provides. I'm
| wary (but not close minded) to the idea that volunteer orgs
| could scale to the top echelons of scientific publication,
| which require a lot of filtering. Perhaps if we look to the
| conference paper model where funding primarily comes from the
| conference? The conference brings benefits beyond publishing.
| In that model publishing equates to financial discount or free
| entrance to the conference, so it flips the equation.
| eslaught wrote:
| I work in CS and we do (mostly) conference publishing.
|
| I could be wrong, but I don't think PC chairs are paid, by
| anybody. Maybe they get free housing at the conference, but
| this is more of a consolation prize given the amount of work
| involved.
|
| Certainly the rank and file PC members don't get anything. I
| was on one PC mailing list where one of the organizers
| accidentally let slip that (some) organizers get free
| housing, and there was a big uproar in the PC. None of us get
| anything like that.
|
| So this is literally a system where the expert reviewers get
| nothing, and even the chairs in charge do it nearly for free.
| What part of this needs to cost money?
|
| The peer review comes from the community. The exclusivity and
| filter comes from the community. Even the _funding_ comes
| from the community, because community members pay to go to
| the conference.
|
| What the publisher does is, as GP noted, mainly to host PDFs
| on a website and make sure they stay up. That costs
| something, but nothing like what the licensing fees for these
| services are (or the so-called "open access" fees that we now
| pay).
| barfbagginus wrote:
| Don't forget the most important OA mode
|
| Black OA means hacking journals and making their papers free
| for all.
|
| That's the only OA we need to invest in. Make the BOA ratio
| into a perfect 1.0, and all other problems with OA vanish.
| barfbagginus wrote:
| Gold OA is trash, don't confuse it with true OA modes:
|
| 1. Green OA: peer reviewed and free for reader and author;
| author waives copyright
|
| 2. Diamond OA: peer reviewed and free for reader and author;
| author KEEPS copyright
|
| 3. Black OA: free for readers, pirated by hackers; DISREGARDS
| copyright
|
| See my other note where I argue that BOA is the most important
| one, since it does not depend on state funding or publisher
| largesse. It simply seizes the knowledge that must be seized.
| tmalsburg2 wrote:
| Smart, because why would you use billions in tax money to fund
| research then let publisher parasites take the results hostage.
| rondrabkin wrote:
| So many problems with the existing process but questions could
| include -is anyone going to take down bad quality or fake
| research -is there a way to update published papers (like link
| rot in references ) -will the repositories be SEO optimized so
| people will find them
| amadeuspagel wrote:
| Why can't academics just publish their stuff on a blog like
| everyone else?
| rscho wrote:
| Because: poor graduate students would contemplate suicide for
| having to gather hundreds of papers from just as many obscure
| blogs.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| if authors all just uploaded a copy of their final PDF to
| sci-hub this would solve the problem
| ufo wrote:
| Papers should be immutable, blogs bit rot, and anonymous peer
| review is important.
|
| The million dollar question is why don't researchers publish on
| journals that don't charge outrageous open-access fees. Here
| the main problemis that carreer advancement is predicated on
| publishing in prestigious venues. Such venues take advantage of
| that by jacking their price. Fixing this will require
| cooperation from governments, which have leverage on both sides
| of the equation: they can help fund alternative paper
| repositories, and they are ultimately responsible for the
| rating criteria of what venues are prestigious and how research
| grants get awarded.
| jimbobthrowawy wrote:
| Nice change! I expect people to still use sci-hub, or something
| like it, to access these for UX reasons.
| EchoReflection wrote:
| "Japan plans to make all publicly funded research available to
| read _in institutional repositories._ "
|
| Oh, are you not a student or teacher or employee here at the
| University of XYZ? I'm sorry, this research is not 'freely'
| available to you.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-05-31 23:03 UTC)