Re:Thousands of AI researchers are boycotting the new Nature...
by a1369209993 on Tuesday May 29, 2018 @08:08PM
(#17183822)
> I don't think anyone disagrees that Nature provides a valuable service
Ooh, ooh! raises hand and waves franticly
Nature does jack shit that couldn't be (and in many cases isn't) done as well or better by the authors' personal or institutional websites.
What they "provide" is a brand name for wasteful status signalling, the same as Goochi purses or sportsball teams.
Re:Thousands of AI researchers are boycotting the new Nature...
by rowaway93 on Thursday May 31, 2018 @06:56AM
(#17195389)
If you have to pay royalties to use a digital font, it stands to reason you have to pay royalties to the keepers of information. Why that's elsevier et al all I don't know, but they are is the only logical conclusion.
Re:Thousands of AI researchers are boycotting the new Nature...
by a1369209993 on Monday June 04, 2018 @01:35PM
(#17230096)
Someone spent time and effort designing that font, and it's reasonable that they should be compensated for it. (Giving them the right to censor any use of the font so they can run a protection racket is a awful way of doing that, but that's not the point I was addressing.) Nature contributes nothing (today - they used to contibute printing presses) that couldn't be accomplished by publishing a first draft and soliciting reviews.
Re:Thousands of AI researchers are boycotting the new Nature...
by modzu on Tuesday May 29, 2018 @09:43PM
(#17184350)
look at what they had to write for that gold star tho, to make the same point! good grief! ppl on HN be self employed, working few hours and all, but still, thats time he aint gettin back ;P
Re:Thousands of AI researchers are boycotting the new Nature...
by sfifs on Wednesday May 30, 2018 @12:29AM
(#17185074)
This forum in general values substantive comments like the second comment the OP made and doesn't value snarky one liners like the first one. That's the trade off for the value folks get from this forum. Other forums may have different cultures that may be more suitable for this particular viewpoint.
I’m not sure I totally agree with the parallels, which is probably where some of the initial confusion arose from. The printing press significantly reduced the costs of publication, allowing unprecedented access to the written word beyond the aristocracy. I don’t think anyone disagrees that Nature provides a valuable service and that it “makes sense to have a publishing house behind” peer reviewed literature. Rather, when the cost to produce peer-reviewed content can be taken on by tax-subsidized content production professionals, and demonstrably WITHOUT an older journal that extracts exorbitant fees without producing significant value beyond its brand-name, it makes sense to challenge the value of the brand.