Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

And like traditional publishers there is still a role they can play, edition and synchronisation of anonymous review remains an important element of paper publication.

They theoretically could play this role, but others are much better at it. These companies are structured to exploit scientists and the public, not to enable them. Innovation is stifled both within and without. We're much better off turning to fresh approaches to peer review, for example any of the things on this list:


This is not done by the publishers. They only provide an online system to do so. The editors and reviewers are other scientists.

> This is not done by the publishers.

The work itself obviously is not[0], but you need somebody to synchronise that stuff, especially to ensure reviews remain anonymous (to paper authors). This must be handled by a third party.

[0] not entirely true for edition, publishers generally employ a number of editors although these editors usually have a solid science background for obvious reasons.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact