maegul ( @maegul@lemmy.ml ) English142•10 days agoYea, academics need to just shut the publication system down. The more they keep pandering to it the more they look like fools.
bolexforsoup ( @bolexforsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone ) English92•10 days agoIt’s chicken/egg or “you first” problem.
You spend years on your work. You probably have loans. Your income is pitiful. And this is the structural thing that gets your name out. Now someone says “hey take a risk, don’t do it and break the system.”
Well…you first 🤷♂️ they publish on this garbage because it’s the only way to move up, and these garbage systems continue on because everyone has to participate. Hate the game. Don’t blame those who are by and large forced to participate.
It would require lot of effort from people with clout. It’s a big fight to pick. I am very much in favor of picking that fight, but we need to be a little sympathetic to what that entails.
qjkxbmwvz ( @qjkxbmwvz@startrek.website ) English16•10 days agoFunding agencies have huge power here; demanding that research be published in OA journals is perhaps a good start (with limits on $ spent publishing, perhaps).
blindsight ( @blindsight@beehaw.org ) English6•10 days agoThis is probably the avenue to shut this down. If funding is contingent on making the publication freely available to download, and that comes from a major government funding source, then this whole scam could die essentially overnight.
That would need to somehow get enough political support to pass muster in the first place and pass the inevitable legal challenge that follows, too. So, really, this is just another example of regulatory capture ruining everything.
skillissuer ( @skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de ) English1•10 days agoi hear you, but this leaves this massive gaping hole very quickly filled by predatory journals
the better solution would be journals created and maintained by universities or other institutions with national (or international, like from EU) funding
maegul ( @maegul@lemmy.ml ) English5•10 days agoI’m sympathetic, but to a limit.
There are a lot of academics out there with a good amount of clout and who are relatively safe. I don’t think I’ve heard of anything remotely worthy on these topics from any researcher with clout, publicly at least. Even privately (I used to be in academia), my feeling was most don’t even know how to think and talk about it, in large part because I don’t think they do think and talk about it all.
And that’s because most academics are frankly shit at thinking and engaging on collective and systematic issues. Many just do not want to, and instead want to embrace the whole “I live and work in an ideal white tower disconnected from society because what I do is bigger than society”. Many get their dopamine kicks from the publication system and don’t think about how that’s not a good thing. Seriously, they don’t deserve as much sympathy as you might think … academia can be a surprisingly childish place. That the publication system came to be at all is proof of that frankly, where they were all duped by someone feeding them ego-dopamine hits. It’s honestly kinda sad.
bolexforsoup ( @bolexforsoup@lemmy.blahaj.zone ) English3•9 days agoI’m sympathetic but to a limit
That’s all I’m saying 🤷♂️
ID411 ( @ID411@lemmy.dbzer0.com ) English2•10 days agoImagine there must be a payoff for them ? Wider distribution ?
porous_grey_matter ( @porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml ) English9•10 days agoNope, you just can’t get a job unless you suck it up and publish in these journals, because they’re already famous. And established profs use their cosy relationships with editors to gatekeep and stifle competition for their funding :(
KillingTimeItself ( @KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com ) English44•10 days agoi think this is less of a meme, and more of a scientifically dystopian fun fact, but sure.
skillissuer ( @skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de ) English4•10 days ago“fun”
KillingTimeItself ( @KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com ) English2•10 days agothe fact, is in fact, rather fun(ny)
NigelFrobisher ( @NigelFrobisher@aussie.zone ) English38•10 days agoThe famously uneditable PDF format.
boonhet ( @boonhet@lemm.ee ) English12•10 days agoIn metadata, no less.
tuna ( @tuna@discuss.tchncs.de ) English37•10 days agoImagine they have an internal tool to check if the hash exists in their database, something like
"SELECT user FROM downloads WHERE hash = '" + hash + "';"
You set the pdf hash to be
1'; DROP TABLE books;--
they scan it, and it effectively deletes their entire business lmfaoo.Another idea might be to duplicate the PDF many times and insert bogus metadata for each. Then submit requests saying that you found an illegal distribution of the PDF. If their process isn’t automated it would waste a lot of time on their part to find the culprit Lol
I think it’s more interesting to think of how to weaponize their own hash rather than deleting it
Chemical Wonka ( @chemicalwonka@discuss.tchncs.de ) English25•10 days agoElsevier is the reason I donate to Sci-Hub.
Dark_Dragon ( @Dark_Dragon@lemmy.dbzer0.com ) English22•10 days agoCan’t we all researcher who is technically good at web servers start a opensource alternative to these paid services. I get that we need to publish to a renowned publisher, but we also decide together to publish to an alternative opensource option. This way the alternate opensource option also grows.
BeardedGingerWonder ( @BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk ) English10•10 days agoLike arxiv.org?
Dark_Dragon ( @Dark_Dragon@lemmy.dbzer0.com ) English2•10 days agoDoes it have all the new research paper regarding medicine and pharmacological action and newer drug interactions and stuff?
JackbyDev ( @JackbyDev@programming.dev ) English3•10 days agoThat’s not what was asked for though lol
Salamander ( @Sal@mander.xyz ) English8•10 days agoSome time last year I learned of an example of such a project (peerreview on GitHub):
The goal of this project was to create an open access “Peer Review” platform:
Peer Review is an open access, reputation based scientific publishing system that has the potential to replace the journal system with a single, community run website. It is free to publish, free to access, and the plan is to support it with donations and (eventually, hopefully) institutional support.
It allows academic authors to submit a draft of a paper for review by peers in their field, and then to publish it for public consumption once they are ready. It allows their peers to exercise post-publish quality control of papers by voting them up or down and posting public responses.
I just looked it up now to see how it is going… And I am a bit saddened to find out that the developer decided to stop. The author has a blog in which he wrote about the project and about why he is not so optimistic about the prospects of crowd sourced peer review anymore: https://www.theroadgoeson.com/crowdsourcing-peer-review-probably-wont-work , and related posts referenced therein.
It is only one opinion, but at least it is the opinion of someone who has thought about this some time and made a real effort towards the goal, so maybe you find some value from his perspective.
Personally, I am still optimistic about this being possible. But that’s easy for me to say as I have not invested the effort!
I do like the intermediaries that have popped up, like PubPeer. I highly recommend that everyone get the extension as it adds context to many different articles.
Salamander ( @Sal@mander.xyz ) English2•9 days agoThat’s really cool, I will use it
It’s been surprisingly helpful, it even flags linked pages, like on Wikipedia.
barsoap ( @barsoap@lemm.ee ) English2•9 days agoThis kind of thing needs to be started by universities and/or research institutes. Not the code part, but the organising the first journals part. It’s going to get nowhere without establishment buy-in.
No_Change_Just_Money ( @No_Change_Just_Money@feddit.de ) English3•10 days agoI mean a paper is renowned if many people cute from it
We could just try citing more free papers, whenever possible (as long as they still have peer review)
barsoap ( @barsoap@lemm.ee ) English1•9 days agoCitation count is a shoddy metric for a paper’s quality. Not just because there’s citation cartels, but because the reason stuff gets cited is not contained in the metric. And then to top it all off as soon as a metric becomes a target, it ceases to be a metric.
vin ( @vin@lemmynsfw.com ) English2•9 days agoChallenge is how to jump start a platform where the researchers come to
NeatNit ( @NeatNit@discuss.tchncs.de ) English14•10 days agoI kind of assume this with any digital media. Games, music, ebooks, stock videos, whatever - embedding a tiny unique ID is very easy and can allow publishers to track down leakers/pirates.
Honestly, even though as a consumer I don’t like it, I don’t mind it that much. Doesn’t seem right to take the extreme position of “publishers should not be allowed to have ANY way of finding out who is leaking things”. There needs to be a balance.
Online phone-home DRM is a huge fuck no, but a benign little piece of metadata that doesn’t interact with anything and can’t be used to spy on me? Whatever, I can accept it.
henfredemars ( @henfredemars@infosec.pub ) English37•10 days agoI object because my public funds were used to pay for most of these papers. Publishers shouldn’t behave as if they own it.
NeatNit ( @NeatNit@discuss.tchncs.de ) English11•10 days agoThat’s true. I was actually thinking/talking about this practice in general, not specifically with regards to Elsevier.
I definitely agree that scientific journals as they are today are unacceptable.
cron ( @cron@feddit.de ) English8•10 days agoDefinitely better than some of the DRM-riddled proprietary eBook formats.
aberrate_junior_beatnik ( @aberrate_junior_beatnik@midwest.social ) English5•10 days agoPlus, if you have two people with legit access, you can pretty easily figure out what’s going on and defeat it.
blindsight ( @blindsight@beehaw.org ) English2•10 days agoIt would be pretty trivial for a script to automatically detect and delete tags like this, I would think. Diff two versions of the file and swap all diff characters to any non-display character.