It’s happening in Germany as well. Universities are banding together to negotiate better deals with publishers - some subscriptions haven’t been renewed when the publishers weren’t forthcoming. It’s not a solution (that would be the wide establishment of independent, self organized/hosted Open Access journals - using Open Journal Systems for example) but it’s a start.
The big issue is that the individuals who lead these institutions are those who are successful with the status quo; perhaps some recognize the importance of changing it but I perceive that most would be unwilling to dismantle a system that worked well for them.
I don’t know about other fields, but we did do this for AI. It’s all community-run, papers are freely available for everyone to read, and the cost of submission in a peer-reviewed venue is to review other papers. The publishers don’t actually provide anything of value except name recognition and being “reputable”, which they maintain through momentum.
There is a new journal I know of (TMLR) that’s becoming a bit more popular in these circles, but I believe they rely solely on volunteers to review rather than asking those who submit papers.
It’s in some ways worse than that. it’s institutional corruption and collusion across all levels of power within institutions. Not having access to pear review, journals, the gravitas, the funding sources:it creates a monopoly of power for all players in the system where they aren’t benefited by opening up access
There are literally tens of thousands of people in academia who could build a transparent, open-source, non-profit publishing system of their own.
Why don’t they?
There is a transitioning happening but progress churns slowly. I like to compare it to getting out of an abusive relationship.
https://sparcopen.org/our-work/big-deal-knowledge-base/unbundling-profiles/mit-libraries/
https://tagteam.harvard.edu/hubs/oatp/items
It’s happening in Germany as well. Universities are banding together to negotiate better deals with publishers - some subscriptions haven’t been renewed when the publishers weren’t forthcoming. It’s not a solution (that would be the wide establishment of independent, self organized/hosted Open Access journals - using Open Journal Systems for example) but it’s a start.
https://deal-konsortium.de/en/
The big issue is that the individuals who lead these institutions are those who are successful with the status quo; perhaps some recognize the importance of changing it but I perceive that most would be unwilling to dismantle a system that worked well for them.
I don’t know about other fields, but we did do this for AI. It’s all community-run, papers are freely available for everyone to read, and the cost of submission in a peer-reviewed venue is to review other papers. The publishers don’t actually provide anything of value except name recognition and being “reputable”, which they maintain through momentum.
Oh, could you share some links?
Links to what?
Sorry, I might have misunderstood - I thought there would be some journals employing that “review to submit” system you mentioned.
Ah, yes. I just wasn’t clear on whether you wanted to know more about the publication venues or about the value of publishers or something else.
In AI, we normally publish in conferences rather than journals. Some of the big ones are
There is a new journal I know of (TMLR) that’s becoming a bit more popular in these circles, but I believe they rely solely on volunteers to review rather than asking those who submit papers.
Thanks, I will be looking into this!
Corruption - at the highest level.
Well I don’t know about “highest” level.
It’s in some ways worse than that. it’s institutional corruption and collusion across all levels of power within institutions. Not having access to pear review, journals, the gravitas, the funding sources:it creates a monopoly of power for all players in the system where they aren’t benefited by opening up access