
How to Fix the Academic Publishing Problem - Mononokay
https://unimpressive.science/essays/fixingacademia
======
aurizon
It is not broken, it works well, the people who run it make huge amounts of
cash and the scientists get what they want - if they can afford it, and the
advancement of tech is slowed by them, esp to poor countries. Elsevier should
be fired and replaced by a paid peer review system that works as it is. All
past and future papers are free of all copyright. Elsevier used the free
services of reviewers to rate papers. Now reviewers will be paid and Elsevier
not. Will it be cheaper? Who knows, but I am so sick of the royalty that is
Elsevier and their ilk, that anything is better, and it will get better and
leave Elsevier in the dust - where they belong

~~~
Mononokay
That's exactly what the page is about - there's even a solution proposed
within.

~~~
aurizon
Yes, it will take action by the Nobel Committee - to say they will only give
Nobels to research that is openly published without copyright from day 1, and
the federal government to state they will only fund research that is open from
day 1. Still need paid reviewers. Elsevier et al, have created a glory based
peer review system where people who are worth vie for the cachet of being a
reviewer.

~~~
Mononokay
> Still need paid reviewers.

Why, exactly? Wouldn't the article's solution be a better way of going about
it?

~~~
aurizon
Meet the 'tragedy of the commons'. The Elsevier way is peer glory, cash is the
best replacement. With no persuasive/coercive force - why would they do it.
Look how Linux does well in an open way for stand alone small apps. Linux can
not compete with the microsoft or oracle machines. Canonical has done very
well and has funded many of the large programming tasks that the catherd could
not manage.

~~~
Mononokay
> With no persuasive/coercive force - why would they do it.

The article says it should be required to submit a paper in the first place -
I'd imagine that'd be incentive enough.

~~~
aurizon
Watch our for circles of reviewers who are not capable, but are willing to act
as reviewers on each other in a network to validate their group. Far
fetched??, not at all, it had been done and continues to be done. Elsevier et
all, did a good job with their peers and glory reward method, so a system that
replaces it need to be well thought out in depth to stand permanently.
Elsevier just sucks and sucks and sucks, like US drug makers

