6 ms·

Common. You probably are a college student, or the original poster is, or both were thus know full well that you get free access to the journals you need when y

by Ardit20 16y ago

Common. You probably are a college student, or the original poster is, or both were thus know full well that you get free access to the journals you need when you are a student. A journal has editors, some choose to have their journals in print which requires much money, and some journals have sub editors, and assistant editors, and chief editors, and a whole infrastructure which demands much money to be upheld. If you do not pay for it, well not you precisely, but the professionals who work in that field, then the funds would be taken either away from research or from students. I would rather someone who is in their thirties, and thus able to afford merely £10 for an article, or £30 for a monthly subscription, or however much it is, pay for it, than the students, amongst whom may be many poor ones and amongst whom almost inevitably the next Einstein come from. There are problems with the system for certain. Personally I think such research should not be beyond a firewall for those who can not afford to pay for it. There is no reason that those who can should not, for if they do not, then the poor will pay.

c1sc0 16y ago
I'm sorry, but there is no excuse whatsoever for that old bloated system for distribution to continue to exist. Sure, editors have value, sure, peer review should be rewarded. But trying to create artificial scarcity by bringing an outdated distribution model to the online world doesn't make sense. Any pdf is just a few hops away on most social networks anyway, so it's not like their paywalls are stopping anyone.
- Ardit20 16y ago
  "old bloated system" You mean the same one that google uses for, amongst other things, to measure authority? I am fine with kicking the old system into oblivion. I am not fine with doing so before suggesting a new system however. I simply do not see how, in this chaotic internet where everyone has an opinion and is able to communicate it to the entire world, we can differentiate between objective solid stuff, and mere speculation. If we are for freedom, then lets us have such freedom. Let us not frown at wikileaks if they publish deep and damaging secrets, let us not be defensive when our own content is concerned and copied, let us so too resist any attempts of the real law, say the law of defamation to apply to the internet, let us be cool with bittorrent and the way it distributes freely our content. If that is the internet we wish, then fine, let us be the pioneers and disrupt all older notions. If the above is extreme however, then let us be impartial and judge where the line ought to be not from a selfish perspective, not from an emotional or ideological perspective, but from a rational, detached, without favour or fear perspective. That is the choice of our generation, but I submit, we can have only one of them. We can not be hypocrites when our own interests are concerned and guard them ferociously, yet fight to undermine the interests of others.
sprout 16y ago
>Common. You probably are a college student, or the original poster is, or both were thus know full well that you get free access to the journals you need when you are a student. That's entirely false. If there was a single distribution point that charged a nominal fee, that would be one thing, but to do any significant research you need at least 5 such £30 monthly subscriptions, and no school subscribes to all journals a student might want. >If you do not pay for it, well not you precisely, but the professionals who work in that field, then the funds would be taken either away from research or from students. I'd like to meet the professionals that buy these papers. I get the distinct impression it's mostly professors, students, and universities paying these outrageous fees. Personally, I'm a professional now and if I needed a paper relevant to my work I would buy it. But I don't need it. Very few professionals need any sort of academic papers, especially in CS. We've got the whole Internet, from Wikipedia to Github to this very site to get information about trends, and we offer it for free because we know that hiding information is more trouble than it's worth (and it's much easier for us to work when those around us freely share.)
- Ardit20 16y ago
  This should perhaps be my last comment on this. On your first point. I was a student and during that time I had access to all the papers I needed, sufficient papers to get the top grades. Second, I do not know what profession you are in, computer science is very different from medicine. To start with, the latter requires actual physical stuff, you know, people you can experiment with, or monkeys, and substances, like bleach, and an actual physical space, rather than simply a computer and some time. I understand that my opinion is in the minority. I understand too that most of you bright smart angels are trying to find loopholes in my reasoning or arguments. I am not however pleased at all with having the entire people of reason and intelligence set against like leaches. This is a discussion. Not of an adversarial kind, but of a collaborative nature, where people of reason and intelligence try to arrive at a conclusion, rather than win one over. If I gather this wrong, then that is my bad. My intention however was to suggest as to how things taking in consideration practical matters, matters of principle, matters of a complex nature and combined by my own self, derives at simply copying a journal article and putting it on your web page to be no different than my buying the application you sell and putting it on my web page for free for all others to use as they please. If reason is dead in this place and what counts is the "I am right", then that is fine. Long Live Liberty of Choice.
aphyr 16y ago
(I really wanted to write a reasoned rebuttal, but the more I read your posts here the less I can figure out exactly what you've intended to say. Maybe some of this disagreement is due to a misunderstanding over writing.) There are quite literally thousands of relevant journals for a college to subscribe to, and institutional access is fantastically expensive. In fact, the cost of journal access here in the US has expanded year over year far faster than inflation or any other information resource, and now consumes the majority of library budgets at many colleges. That "free access" you were talking about for students? Physical Review alone runs from $17,000 to $32,000 annually. Now imagine maintaining a few hundred of those subscriptions. On the other side of things, I have published in Physical Review Letters, and was disillusioned with the editorial/peer review process. You're hopelessly constrained for length, but asked to remove key sentences while expanding abbreviations. Because it's extremely difficult to explain your work in such a short space, your reviewers can focus on details you know deserve explanation but simply can't include for brevity--or worse, misunderstand your research entirely. Let's face it: this is only a problem for dead-tree publishers. We could double the page limits for online articles at negligible cost, and I would argue, decreased difficulty for reviewers and referees. Some people have raised more political concerns about the review process, but I don't understand those as fully. [edit] I should make it clear that I greatly value the work being done by APS and journals in organizing, qualifying, and sharing high-value correspondence. I simply believe there may be a space for open-access journals as well.
- Ardit20 16y ago
  What I intended to say exactly is very simple. The post which I originally replied to states that the guy intends to basically copy journal articles behind pay walls and put them on some site where everyone can access them for free. I stated that such a thing would firstly be a breach of copyrights, secondly is unethical, thirdly there is no reason to do it and I tried to give my reasons which are summarised below. It is nice for sure to get stuff for free, but I suggested that someone would have to pay for it. If it would not be the current institutions and professionals which pay for it, then the money would either come from the research funding, or professor's pay, or higher university fees for students as professionals who work in that field need not buy such articles, but to publish such articles requires money which universities would need to find from somewhere. I do not know if an editor is paid for editing, or a peer reviewer for reviewing, but many of these journals are printed. You can find most of them online but even there there is much overhead, such as customer support, people to add the articles online, format them and all the rest. Currently, professionals pay for this infrastructure. If you are a lawyer for example, you would probably need access to these journals as the law changes all the time. So too if you are a doctor I would think, or a psychologist, or historian... Universities pay for it too, but students do not directly. You can argue that they charge too much, you can argue that the system needs to be reformed, but I was trying to argue that the journals do not need to be free. That is so because any given journal interests a very small number of people and the general public would not understand them or have any interest in them. If one is doing computer science, ok they might be interested to read one article or two in the field of medicine which might be of a general interest, such as the article in point, but generally, they wouldn't be interested to read articles from a field in which they do not operate. Therefore, to conclude, as the public would not really have any benefit from having all the journals for free, I would rather the professionals who have an interest in the journals provide the funding to support them.

by Ardit20 16y ago

c1sc0 16y ago

I'm sorry, but there is no excuse whatsoever for that old bloated system for distribution to continue to exist. Sure, editors have value, sure, peer review should be rewarded. But trying to create artificial scarcity by bringing an outdated distribution model to the online world doesn't make sense. Any pdf is just a few hops away on most social networks anyway, so it's not like their paywalls are stopping anyone.

Ardit20 16y ago
"old bloated system" You mean the same one that google uses for, amongst other things, to measure authority? I am fine with kicking the old system into oblivion. I am not fine with doing so before suggesting a new system however. I simply do not see how, in this chaotic internet where everyone has an opinion and is able to communicate it to the entire world, we can differentiate between objective solid stuff, and mere speculation. If we are for freedom, then lets us have such freedom. Let us not frown at wikileaks if they publish deep and damaging secrets, let us not be defensive when our own content is concerned and copied, let us so too resist any attempts of the real law, say the law of defamation to apply to the internet, let us be cool with bittorrent and the way it distributes freely our content. If that is the internet we wish, then fine, let us be the pioneers and disrupt all older notions. If the above is extreme however, then let us be impartial and judge where the line ought to be not from a selfish perspective, not from an emotional or ideological perspective, but from a rational, detached, without favour or fear perspective. That is the choice of our generation, but I submit, we can have only one of them. We can not be hypocrites when our own interests are concerned and guard them ferociously, yet fight to undermine the interests of others.

sprout 16y ago

>Common. You probably are a college student, or the original poster is, or both were thus know full well that you get free access to the journals you need when you are a student. That's entirely false. If there was a single distribution point that charged a nominal fee, that would be one thing, but to do any significant research you need at least 5 such £30 monthly subscriptions, and no school subscribes to all journals a student might want. >If you do not pay for it, well not you precisely, but the professionals who work in that field, then the funds would be taken either away from research or from students. I'd like to meet the professionals that buy these papers. I get the distinct impression it's mostly professors, students, and universities paying these outrageous fees. Personally, I'm a professional now and if I needed a paper relevant to my work I would buy it. But I don't need it. Very few professionals need any sort of academic papers, especially in CS. We've got the whole Internet, from Wikipedia to Github to this very site to get information about trends, and we offer it for free because we know that hiding information is more trouble than it's worth (and it's much easier for us to work when those around us freely share.)

Ardit20 16y ago
This should perhaps be my last comment on this. On your first point. I was a student and during that time I had access to all the papers I needed, sufficient papers to get the top grades. Second, I do not know what profession you are in, computer science is very different from medicine. To start with, the latter requires actual physical stuff, you know, people you can experiment with, or monkeys, and substances, like bleach, and an actual physical space, rather than simply a computer and some time. I understand that my opinion is in the minority. I understand too that most of you bright smart angels are trying to find loopholes in my reasoning or arguments. I am not however pleased at all with having the entire people of reason and intelligence set against like leaches. This is a discussion. Not of an adversarial kind, but of a collaborative nature, where people of reason and intelligence try to arrive at a conclusion, rather than win one over. If I gather this wrong, then that is my bad. My intention however was to suggest as to how things taking in consideration practical matters, matters of principle, matters of a complex nature and combined by my own self, derives at simply copying a journal article and putting it on your web page to be no different than my buying the application you sell and putting it on my web page for free for all others to use as they please. If reason is dead in this place and what counts is the "I am right", then that is fine. Long Live Liberty of Choice.

aphyr 16y ago

(I really wanted to write a reasoned rebuttal, but the more I read your posts here the less I can figure out exactly what you've intended to say. Maybe some of this disagreement is due to a misunderstanding over writing.) There are quite literally thousands of relevant journals for a college to subscribe to, and institutional access is fantastically expensive. In fact, the cost of journal access here in the US has expanded year over year far faster than inflation or any other information resource, and now consumes the majority of library budgets at many colleges. That "free access" you were talking about for students? Physical Review alone runs from $17,000 to $32,000 annually. Now imagine maintaining a few hundred of those subscriptions. On the other side of things, I have published in Physical Review Letters, and was disillusioned with the editorial/peer review process. You're hopelessly constrained for length, but asked to remove key sentences while expanding abbreviations. Because it's extremely difficult to explain your work in such a short space, your reviewers can focus on details you know deserve explanation but simply can't include for brevity--or worse, misunderstand your research entirely. Let's face it: this is only a problem for dead-tree publishers. We could double the page limits for online articles at negligible cost, and I would argue, decreased difficulty for reviewers and referees. Some people have raised more political concerns about the review process, but I don't understand those as fully. [edit] I should make it clear that I greatly value the work being done by APS and journals in organizing, qualifying, and sharing high-value correspondence. I simply believe there may be a space for open-access journals as well.

Ardit20 16y ago
What I intended to say exactly is very simple. The post which I originally replied to states that the guy intends to basically copy journal articles behind pay walls and put them on some site where everyone can access them for free. I stated that such a thing would firstly be a breach of copyrights, secondly is unethical, thirdly there is no reason to do it and I tried to give my reasons which are summarised below. It is nice for sure to get stuff for free, but I suggested that someone would have to pay for it. If it would not be the current institutions and professionals which pay for it, then the money would either come from the research funding, or professor's pay, or higher university fees for students as professionals who work in that field need not buy such articles, but to publish such articles requires money which universities would need to find from somewhere. I do not know if an editor is paid for editing, or a peer reviewer for reviewing, but many of these journals are printed. You can find most of them online but even there there is much overhead, such as customer support, people to add the articles online, format them and all the rest. Currently, professionals pay for this infrastructure. If you are a lawyer for example, you would probably need access to these journals as the law changes all the time. So too if you are a doctor I would think, or a psychologist, or historian... Universities pay for it too, but students do not directly. You can argue that they charge too much, you can argue that the system needs to be reformed, but I was trying to argue that the journals do not need to be free. That is so because any given journal interests a very small number of people and the general public would not understand them or have any interest in them. If one is doing computer science, ok they might be interested to read one article or two in the field of medicine which might be of a general interest, such as the article in point, but generally, they wouldn't be interested to read articles from a field in which they do not operate. Therefore, to conclude, as the public would not really have any benefit from having all the journals for free, I would rather the professionals who have an interest in the journals provide the funding to support them.