“You pay to read research you fund. That’s ludicrous”

Re:“You pay to read research you fund. That’s ludicrous” by p4bl0 on Monday April 18, 2016 @01:26PM (#11521602)

Again you are not right about that. In practice in the vast majority of the cases¹ the editorial board (for journals) or the program committee (for conferences) do that. And these people are researchers, and they're not paid by the publishers. At this stage the publisher does not intervene.

¹ In some other cases such as with Nature, what you said is true. But the point is that the model you are describing is far from being the only one, and there is no evidences that it is better. In computer science for example, the most prestigious venues are conferences not journals, and in that cases the publishers does nothing until the very end of the process, where its work often consists in putting PDFs online and that's it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“You pay to read research you fund. That’s ludicrous” by ikeboy on Monday April 18, 2016 @01:36PM (#11521681)

Computer science and math are very different than other fields, because they can stand independently most of the time.

If you're going to throw around phrases like "vast majority", can you cite numbers?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“You pay to read research you fund. That’s ludicrous” by p4bl0 on Monday April 18, 2016 @01:46PM (#11521760)

I do not have precise numbers, but I've worked on these issues with biologists, philosophers, physicists, computer scientists, mathematicians, and people in cognitive science, and also with librarians and people in charge of negotiating with publishers. What I told matches with what all these people also see from their point of view.

[ Parent | on HN ]