Encouraged by the University of California's widely-discussed decision to push back against Elsevier:https://www.chronicle.com/article/U-of-California-System/245798 …
-
-
Okay, that's food for thought, but I doubt this specific effect is all that large.
Prikaži ovu nit -
There's a broader & more important point though: we want a scientific publishing system where someone can start a new journal / repository / database (etc), & if it serves society as a whole better than existing solutions, it will rapidly grow to replace or augment them.
Prikaži ovu nit -
For instance: all other things equal we want well-run open access journals to grow & outcompete even well-run closed access journals, since the OA journals provide more social benefit.
Prikaži ovu nit -
To the extent journals, databases, and other services remain closed access, we want prices to come down, while maintaining or increasing the rate at which those services improve.
Prikaži ovu nit -
We want socially beneficial ideas like preprint repositories, open data archives, open code platforms, and so on, to thrive and grow, and to try out experimental ideas.
Prikaži ovu nit -
Ideally, we want a thriving ecosystem of these things, with the best - meaning, the most beneficial for society as a whole (not just the publishers, or just scientists) - rapidly growing and flourishing.
Prikaži ovu nit -
There's many systemic reasons this isn't happening at the moment. The market is terribly inefficient. Here's a few structural ways the market is broken.
Prikaži ovu nit -
Brokenness 1: Perverse incentives. A nice illustrative story from Andrew Odlyzko (https://firstmonday.org/article/view/542/463#IV …. ). In the 1970s Elsevier's journal Nuclear Physics B took over as the top journal in particle physics, from Physical Review D.
Prikaži ovu nit -
Why? Physical Review D cost far less. But Physical Review D had page charges. Nuclear Physics B dropped their page charges, & authors began to submit more and more of work there. Presto, it became the top journal!pic.twitter.com/ThrJb1zNuI
Prikaži ovu nit -
The underlying trouble is that researchers have a lot of power over buying decisions by university libraries, but do not bear the cost of those decisions (the libraries do). So they're price-insensitive. Such a separation of decision-making power from costs leads to bad outcomes
Prikaži ovu nit -
Instead of having a market where maximizing revenues also means maximizing social benefit, we have a dreadfully inefficient market where maximizing revenue benefits no-one _except_ the publisher.
Prikaži ovu nit -
Brokenness 2: The big deal. Journals used to be sold a la carte. But beginning in 1996 was the era of the era of "the big deal" (e.g. https://poynder.blogspot.com/2012/10/open-access-in-uk-reinventing-big-deal.html … ). Instead of buying journals individually, libraries bought them in big bundles, sometimes of thousands of journals.
Prikaži ovu nit -
In many ways this was good. The internet meant that publishing infrastructure could be centralized, giving big publishers economies of scale. Bundling passed some of those economies of scale onto customers.
Prikaži ovu nit -
But it had many negative consequences. It meant that journals became a commodity bought in bulk, typically distinguished only by a very imperfect brand / quality marker like impact factor.
Prikaži ovu nit -
This was happening at a time when experimental new ideas should have been flourishing. At such a time you don't want things bought in bulk, you want them bought bespoke, based on highly idiosyncratic and individual criteria.
Prikaži ovu nit -
And so instead of competing on the basis of amazing new product types, increased product quality, & increased access, publishers instead compete by achieving economies of scale, driving down operating costs while maintaining revenue, improved sales, & maximizing brand lock-in.
Prikaži ovu nit -
This is reflected in many ways: most obviously, the many mergers and acquisitions of publishers, giving increased economies of scale. This has the very unfortunate by-product of reducing competition.
Prikaži ovu nit -
It also means that many (not all) of the people running scientific publishing are business people who specialize in managing operations (driving down operating costs while maintaining revenue), and in sales and marketing
Prikaži ovu nit -
An example: IIRC Derk Haank, the CEO of Elsevier from 1998-2004 and of Springer, later Springer-Nature, from 2004 to 2017, did his PhD on economies of scale.
Prikaži ovu nit -
Nothing intrinsically wrong with this. But we're at a time in history where the socially beneficial act isn't driving down operating costs while maintaining revenue. It's producing marvellous new tools, increasing access, etc. Current market structure isn't supporting this well
Prikaži ovu nit -
Brokenness 3: The lack of growth models for the best new ideas. An example is the arXiv preprint server. It's one of humanity's great achievements of the past 30 years. Just in economic terms, over the long run it will generate trillions of dollars in social utility for humanity
Prikaži ovu nit -
If it captured just a tiny fraction, the arXiv would have a budget of tens or hundreds of millions of dollars a year. Instead, the arXiv has struggled to make budget for much of its existence. It can't grow or innovate the way it should, & changes at a glacial pace.
Prikaži ovu nit -
No criticism of the arXiv intended - this is a consequence of a systemic factor: the lack of good growth models that enable great services to grow and change and improve.
Prikaži ovu nit -
You see this pattern repeated over and over for a tonne of new tools. Great new tool, no growth model. And so they stagnate and languish.
Prikaži ovu nit -
One response is to say "Oh, the NSF [or whoever] should give a lot more funding."
Prikaži ovu nit -
I'm sympathetic, but only as a stopgap. It's not a good long-run solution. If centralized authorities are providing money, you end with the arXiv (or whoever) as a de facto incumbent, being funded by decisions made by a small group of ppl. This is a recipe for stagnation, at best
Prikaži ovu nit -
What you really want is to encourage the arXiv to grow & innovate, _and_ also to fund potential competitors who aim to do even better than the arXiv. And, if things are healthy, they will replace the arXiv.
Prikaži ovu nit -
So, to come back to where we started: are for-profits bad? Should we aim for a not-for-profit future in scientific publishing?
Prikaži ovu nit -
I hope it's clear these questions miss the point. Better questions are: what's the growth model for innovation? Is the market set up to enable the flourishing of many good new ideas that will benefit humanity? At the moment, it's not doing a great job, in my opinion.
Prikaži ovu nit -
Instead, incumbent organizations maximize revenue in ways that do serve some social job (journals are good things), but far less than could be done, and often with a lot of negative behaviours. This is true both of for-profits like Elsevier, & of many not-for-profit publishers
Prikaži ovu nit - Još 12 drugih odgovora
Novi razgovor -
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.