This case depicts the global profit-pandemic. Profit before all, profit before people. People share the cost, companies share the profit.
This model will break. A treshold is reached, scientists revolt.
A similar case, recently, in Europe popped up in football / soccer. Supporters and players defy the creation of a Superleague focused on higher profits for a select few.
Profit-seeking eats the world. A healthy regulation is needed. People first, profit next would be a sustainable trade-off.
Without wanting to get too political, the only reason publishers have the current model is because our legal system grants it as such with copyright.
I wouldn't be surprised if abolishing copyright meant a more vibrant music and film industry; with more indie producers and less mega labels and producers.
> because our legal system grants it as such with copyright
First and formost because scientists are forced by contract to transfer their IP right of the publication to the publishing company if they want to publish there.
> if abolishing copyright meant a more vibrant music and film industry
Copyright as such was originally a good idea and was intended to provide authors with an income. But it has been corrupted over time like so many things (e.g. patent law) so that today the artists and authors benefit the least. Big publishing companies and collecting societies profit the most. So it's not copyright that needs to be abolished, but the opportunities for abuse.
- authors can publish in any journal they choose, including open access journals
- author choose to publish in Elsivier journals because of the prestige (hence Elsiviers curation and impact factor is what people pay for)
- so basically authors want to publish in prestigious journals, but don’t want to pay for it, but aren’t willing to sidestep those same journals and publish in open access journals
Seems like the problem is not Elsivier but the institutions that demand they publish in high impact journals?
> authors can publish in any journal they choose, including open access journals
Not if they want to have their academic jobs and get grant funding for their research. The entities that have sweetheart deals with companies like Elsevier aren't scientists; they're universities and governments. And universities and governments control academic jobs and grant funding.
The real fix is for it to be required by law that any research that was funded by government grants must be published with open access.
> The real fix is for it to be required by law that any research that was funded by government grants must be published with open access.
It basically is already. In the US, if you produce a peer-reviewed paper resulting from federal funding you must provide "Public Access". Each agency has their own way of implementing it. For example, a publication funded by NIH must be uploaded to pubmed.
Perhaps it says that on paper, but in practice it is not enforced in many areas. Published papers funded with government grants are behind paywalls; data and computer code are routinely not archived in a publicly accessible location. The example you give, PubMed, is actually the exception, not the rule, in practice.
Perhaps I should have said "required by law, which is actually enforced".
How do universities have “sweetheart deals” with Elsevier? All I’ve heard is universities complain about the cost of subscriptions.
And it seems odd for the solution to be “force Elsivier to make articles free”. That’s like saying “Harvard and Stanford have the most prestigious degrees, but they charge too much, so the only fair thing to do is to force them to make it free”.
Seems to me the main problem is universities place too much emphasis on these “high impact” journals when it comes to career progression. Measure performance a different way and the problem is solved.
But, everybody doesn’t want to let go of what they get out of it, they want everyone else to give up their benefits.
Researchers - love the prestige of getting published in Science, hate that their articles aren’t freely available to other scientists (want their cake and eat it too). Could publish in open access journals but don’t want to take a hit in “impact factor” (first mover disadvantage).
Universities - love that someone else gets to judge the performance of their researchers rather than them. Hate that they spend tens of millions on access, but hard to say “publish in Science but we won’t pay for access” (cake and eat it too)
Journals - love the fact they can get fantastic papers submitted, and free peer review solely because of the prestige built up over decades/centuries. Want to charge the “willingness to pay” price for the prestige they bring, but cant justify the price versus cost of publication.
> How do universities have “sweetheart deals” with Elsevier? All I’ve heard is universities complain about the cost of subscriptions.
If you think the cost of a subscription is high for universities, which have huge endowments that are invested in all kinds of assets (I have seen it commented that major universities in the US are really hedge funds that happen to do teaching and research on the side), imagine what it's like for individuals with no academic affiliation who just want to see what their tax money is actually funding.
In other words, the "sweetheart deal" is being able to afford the subscription at all, given that in practice open access does not happen.
Because compared to what an ordinary taxpayer gets, it is. And that's the relevant comparison since ordinary taxpayers are the ones ultimately paying for the research.
Apple has a monopoly on the apple logo. They certainly don't make the best phones and laptops, not by a long shot. Same thing here, most people don't really bat an eye and want curated science.
This argument assumes that authors are free to choose other publishing venues. In truth, the present regulatory regime in most countries uses publishing records as a major indicator of research quality, making it desirable or researchers to publish in as high-impact journals as possible. As a tragedy of the commons, the upside of a high-impact publication for the researcher is much larger than the marginal cost of buying access to that same work.
Even for well-established researchers who are not themselves dependent on publishing track-record, there will most often be junior researchers on the team who are.
I completely agree with this. "Customers" want something, Elsevier says they'll make it for a price but if they make it and offer it for a price, people either have to accept, pay, and take it, or reject, not pay, and not take it.
Elsevier is not responsible for changing this, the "customers" are. Individual researchers are just the puppets in this play. The institutions and funding agencies that pull their strings are the "customers" that could require something different and change the system to whatever they were willing to pay for.
These "customers" should be pressured from every direction to require open access. Any particular business practice by Elsevier is ultimately irrelevant. The customers will get something different when they pay for something different.
If the customers (institutions and agencies that pay) demanded that the end product be put online with no paywall, someone (Elsevier or their replacement) will quote a price for whatever preparation service was required (filtering for quality? management of peer review? editing? graphics?) PLUS hosting, and the "customers" could pay for that, find another provider, or do it themselves or in a consortium. They are the ones who need to change.
can someone explain to me why these multi billion dollar scientific publishing companies exist anyway? scientists write the papers and other scientists do the peer review, what does the company do? do they have a group of scientists on payroll to provide "high quality peer review" or something? what is the business model here?
They were needed at some point. They did corrections and even peer reviews. Now it is just a lucrative enterprise.
But they sill serve as reference for how many papers someone published and how often someone gets referenced. The reputation of the journal is relevant as well. I think this worsens the replication crisis.
Interesting fact about Mrs. Elbakyan is that she was Putin and Crimea annexy supporter. Which she was aggressively bullied for in russian academia (which is majorly liberal) during 2017. She closed SciHub access from Russia whichafeter saying: "Boil in your shit by yourself".
It has long been my understanding that she is a Stalinist, an ideology I consider truly abhorrent. But you know what? I don't give a shit. Actions speak louder than words and I like what she does. If I like what she's doing, then why should I give a shit that she believes things I think are beyond dumb?
Rescue Mission for Sci-Hub and Open Science: We are the library - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27154266 - May 2021 (52 comments)