|
Top-level
@esther I'm all for screwing over the greedy, but this will also screw over the non-profit presses who are struggling to survive and who form the backbone of the academic publishing world. If they disappear, so does peer review. So consider supporting non-profit academic publishers. 5 comments
@esther I'm not sure what you mean by peer review and academic publishing depending on SH. When I was in ac publishing, I oversaw the peer review of thousands of books, and never once did we make use of SH.  @negativeprimes then talk to some students and researchers who need SH to source citations and for their own research and could never afford it otherwise. Without their work there’s nothing to publish or review either. And instead of going after people trying to get by and get their work done, maybe go after mainstream publishing so that something like SH becomes less necessary. @esther Never once have I "gone after" anyone. I only encouraged support for non-profit ac presses. I have no interest in engaging your ad hominem. Farewell. @negativeprimes @esther That's assuming that you're in a large institution that can afford paying for you to see those publications. If you're in a smaller institution or, God forbid, a member of the public... then what? Also, peer review as it currently is, is an extremely flawed process, mostly because of those large greedy publishers. |
Gregory's Server
@negativeprimes peer review and academic publishing also largely depend on sci-hub. This is a typical straw-man argument that you’re making here, trying to play two parties against each other who work against the same problem and can absolutely coexist.