Judge Recommends ISP and Search Engine Blocking of Sci-Hub in the US

Re:Judge Recommends ISP and Search Engine Blocking of Sci-Hu... by manquer on Tuesday October 03, 2017 @07:50PM (#15397210)

It is not that simple. Content curation and editing is just as big part of publishing as distribution is. Technology has only solved the distribution problem. It still takes lot of expensive human work to select the good quality works and proofread /edit/ peer review them etc before it is fit for publishing in a decent journal.

Ppl are more than willing to pay for legal content if it's in consumable form in a reasonable price point as Netflix and spotify have shown successfully.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Judge Recommends ISP and Search Engine Blocking of Sci-Hu... by ferdterguson on Tuesday October 03, 2017 @08:21PM (#15397376)

> It still takes lot of expensive human work to select the good quality works and proofread /edit/ peer review them etc before it is fit for publishing in a decent journal

Good thing that almost all of that expensive effort is done by volunteer scientist editors and reviewers. I routinely see spelling errors and english errors (going against journal guidelines for British/US english) in scientific literature. I'm convinced publishers do as little proofing as possible.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Judge Recommends ISP and Search Engine Blocking of Sci-Hu... by madhadron on Wednesday October 04, 2017 @01:03AM (#15398370)

For the major journals (Nature, Science, Cell, PNAS), they don't do any. There is no copy editing. That's the author's responsibility now.

[ Parent | on HN ]