Thread

1. networkOne · 1790215158 · focus · HN ↗

   Sorely, sorely needed.

   How is science to evolve if good research requires $49 a pop to view?

   And what amazes me is that these authors have undeniably stood on the shoulders of giants in order to create their research.

   1. kadoban · 1790217111 · focus · HN ↗

      You think authors are the ones driving the $49 view fees? They are not.

      1. SonicTheSith · 1790251044 · focus · HN ↗

         They are, if their institution does not have contracts for that specific domain from Elsevier et al.

         At my institute we for example do not have access to parts of Springer.

         Luckily, more and more is moving towards open access.

   2. locknitpicker · 1790266972 · focus · HN ↗

      > How is science to evolve if good research requires $49 a pop to view?

      This kind of criticism is misplaced. The answer to reputable journals being held hostage by the likes of Elsevier is not dropping peer review and dump articles in a blog-like site such as Arxiv.

      I'm confident the bulk of academia would love to move away from Elsevier et al and have free open journals as their discourse venue. However, the publish or perish situation created pressure to count only the papers published in reference publications in their productivity metrics, and those were hijacked by for-profit editorial companies which unscrupulously abuse their dominant entrenched position.

      And publishing on Arxiv does not change that.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.