I get that it would be harder for publishers to make money in a world where all papers have to be made publicly available. That objection can be made without lying about the contribution of publishers, and the implications of mandating open access to papers from day 1.
-
-
Prikaži ovu nit
-
In practice, the role of publishers is not "to advance scholarship and innovation", it's to charge large sums of money for services that in reality would cost almost nothing to provide, if not for the gravitational force of a prestige economy driven by—you guessed it—publishers.
Prikaži ovu nit -
The proposed policy only threatens "the intellectual property of American organizations" because publishers require the people who actually do the intellectual work to sign over all ownership in return for publication. Do the authors get paid for this? No! They *pay*. Madness.
Prikaži ovu nit -
The letter is, I suppose, correct that the proposed policy represents a massive government intervention into the private market. Strangely, the publishers don't seem to mind massive government intervention when it consists of line-item subsidies in grants for publishing costs.
Prikaži ovu nit -
There is a lot of talk about how much this policy will cost taxpayers. Billions! How the publishers currently "finance and manage the peer review process". This is, apparently, code for building websites that can send emails. Lord knows it doesn't involve paying actual reviewers.
Prikaži ovu nit -
Almost every sentence in this letter contains distortions, misrepresentations, or outright lies. The reality is that publishers currently do almost nothing positive for the US research enterprise, and are among the biggest sources of inefficiency and unnecessary expense.
Prikaži ovu nit -
I don't really know what else to say other than that I hope this proposal turns into policy sooner rather than later, and I don't think we should mourn any publishers that fail to adapt. Their bottom lines are not more important than the well-being of the American public.
Prikaži ovu nit -
In the meantime, I will no longer be reviewing for, and probably not submitting to, journals at any of the societies who signed on to this statement (including
@APA and@PsychScience). I encourage other academics to do the same.Prikaži ovu nit -
I'm curious to hear what the
@PsychScience board has to say about this. Does this letter accurately represent the APS board's position on these issues,@LFeldmanBarrett@ivryrich@annkring@MicheleJGelfand@drlambchop@SBrookhartAPS?Prikaži ovu nit
Kraj razgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
For anyone with questions about
@PsychScience's signing of the letter, please see this statement from APS.https://www.psychologicalscience.org/policy/statement-from-aps-regarding-possible-executive-order-affecting-publications.html … -
Thanks. This doesn't, however, explain why APS signed onto a 2nd nationalistic letter full of misrepresentations that actively lobbies the US government against public access. Most of the societies that signed the first letter did *not* sign the second. Why did APS?
- Još 2 druga 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.