Gerard takes on JSTOR, purt'near calls them liars Options

[thekohser]

David Gerard assesses JSTOR as a "problem that needs dealing with", and he goes on to ponder ways by which the entire "proprietary journal system" could be brought to its knees.

[dtobias]

It's not actually the academics being opposed or attempted to be undermined here... academics don't actually get paid (in general) for writing, publishing, or peer-reviewing articles. Rather, it's the parasitical business of commercial corporate academic publishers, who charge extortionate prices for commoners to see the papers the academic authors submitted for free, that is being opposed. This business model was arguably useful in the days when publication required shifting huge mounds of paper, but is rather useless in the Internet age.

[Ottava]

It's not actually the academics being opposed or attempted to be undermined here... academics don't actually get paid (in general) for writing, publishing, or peer-reviewing articles. Rather, it's the parasitical business of commercial corporate academic publishers, who charge extortionate prices for commoners to see the papers the academic authors submitted for free, that is being opposed. This business model was arguably useful in the days when publication required shifting huge mounds of paper, but is rather useless in the Internet age.

Actually, the academics do benefit from the journals, as they are exclusive and allow you to gain more prominent positions. To remove the costs, then you would no longer have the journals. Academics can publish freely on the internet now. However, you don't have the prominent editors, the great peer review, and the backing of major academic institutions supporting that because you can't pay the great expense for such things. Without these, your article is the same as one written by a 5 year old.

Look at the journal Nature vs some kid's blog. At least one you go to with some confidence that the work is legitimate, where the internet is whatever. Just look at all the nuts who cram into a place like Wikipedia and chase out the real academics. That is the internet as a whole. These journals are the only bastion of academia and wont exist if they are "free".

[Milton Roe]

Look at the journal Nature vs some kid's blog. At least one you go to with some confidence that the work is legitimate, where the internet is whatever. Just look at all the nuts who cram into a place like Wikipedia and chase out the real academics. That is the internet as a whole. These journals are the only bastion of academia and wont exist if they are "free".

Yes, but on the other hand, the cost of these journals does NOT mostly go to pay for the intellectual labor of those who separate the wheat from the chaff. Much of THAT work is done by "peers" who do work for free. Editorial and layup work is legitimate, but what fraction of the budget goes for that? It's very hard to find out.

These journals come out on paper, most of them, so generally you're paying too much for one, if you buy it that way (and you don't get a break if you want it only in e-form). The Nature Publishing Group (which publishes Nature) also publishes thirty other science journals or so besides Nature, and they, in turn, are owned by Macmillan Publishers, which does a wide range of other types of publishing. But which (you may be sure) doesn't screw its other authors they way they screw their science authors. Essentially, the deal in academia is that authors agree to work for free, in turn for academic credit. Macmillan/Nature keeps all the profit in turn for its reputation. Which has been earned on the back of its unpaid reviewers, mostly, not its amazing staff that churns out slick paper journals with pretty graphs and no spelling or grammatical errors.