News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Open access: The true cost of science publishing. Parent comment

Re:Open access: The true cost of science publishing by ig1 on Thursday March 28, 2013 @02:30PM (#5456723)
The difference is that YouTube are pure middlemen: users themselves are the content creators, consumers, and reviewers. As reviewers they are unpaid, and as creators they often pay to publish their work.

The difference is that Facebook are pure middlemen: users themselves are the content creators, consumers, and reviewers. As reviewers they are unpaid, and as creators they often pay to publish their work.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Open access: The true cost of science publishing by RabbitAngstrom on Thursday March 28, 2013 @03:35PM (#5457128)
Interesting point; in the scientific community some are quite honored by being chosen as a peer reviewer. It's like a rite of passage.

The only difference I can see is that the YouTube/Facebook reviewer title is a lot easier to come by. I thought it more akin to Amazon Vine, but at least then you get to keep the things you test!

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Open access: The true cost of science publishing by dflock on Thursday March 28, 2013 @03:06PM (#5456979)
Your ISP/you don't have to fork over an upfront cash subscription/ppv to watch youtube. Institutional journal subscriptions can run to 100's of thousands of dollars a year+.
[ Parent | on HN ]