top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 205 points 2 years ago (1 child)

This isn't a meme, it's a crime

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 65 points 2 years ago* (4 children)

    There are literally tens of thousands of people in academia who could build a transparent, open-source, non-profit publishing system of their own.

    Why don't they?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] [S] 86 points 2 years ago* (last edited 4 weeks ago) (1 child)
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago

    It's happening in Germany as well. Universities are banding together to negotiate better deals with publishers - some subscriptions haven't been renewed when the publishers weren't forthcoming. It's not a solution (that would be the wide establishment of independent, self organized/hosted Open Access journals - using Open Journal Systems for example) but it's a start.

    https://deal-konsortium.de/en/

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 26 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Corruption - at the highest level.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago

    Well I don't know about "highest" level.

    It's in some ways worse than that. it's institutional corruption and collusion across all levels of power within institutions. Not having access to pear review, journals, the gravitas, the funding sources:it creates a monopoly of power for all players in the system where they aren't benefited by opening up access

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    I don't know about other fields, but we did do this for AI. It's all community-run, papers are freely available for everyone to read, and the cost of submission in a peer-reviewed venue is to review other papers. The publishers don't actually provide anything of value except name recognition and being "reputable", which they maintain through momentum.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • load more comments (6 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 187 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Remember folks, if you pirate scientific papers you're stealing from the hard working......wait a minute....

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 67 points 2 years ago (2 children)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 152 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Academic Authors: $0

    FAKE NEWS

    This should be in the negatives. We have to pay to get papers published in these traditional journals.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    And sometimes open access costs money for the author too.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 92 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    and don't use Sci-hub people. I am warning ⚠️ you so you can avoid it 🫡

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 51 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    but wait...

    where meme part ?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 46 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    New textbooks have disappearing ink that only lasts, about one semester, until a month before finals, and then in that month they trigger dynamic pricing increases due to a stronger than typical demand...

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 42 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    NGL if I was a college professor in this situation I'd be pirating my own work fuck these guys

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 36 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Just like the Olympics. The companies are vampire squids.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 33 points 2 years ago

    Just here to say fuck Elsevier.

  • source
  • [–] 33 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I too want to open a business where both customers and suppliers pay me. Do you know any more gullible sectors? Academics are pretty extorted already it seems.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 31 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    Reviewers and writers actually do get a stipend, but it's a token amount like 200 bucks a year. This industry is the most ass backward incentive structure we could possibly create, the only reason writers would provide articles to a journal is literally for the clout.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 31 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    Or, publish to PLOS ONE, the open-access science journal.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PLOS_One

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 27 points 2 years ago (1 child)
    load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 20 points 2 years ago

    That seems like a very lucrative market to interrupt

  • source
  • [–] 20 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    As much as I'm against parasitic practices, I wonder how the inevitable corruption of money would (further) skew research if academia was well paid for their papers.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 15 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Why are we looking at revenue? We don't know the operating costs. What are the profit margins?

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›