[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [AUDITORY] arXiv web of trust
Dear Matt (et al.),
Just to carry on your discussion about authors and reviewers not being paid and journals making profit out of them.
Peer Community Inn is an organization providing peer review to preprints:
In practice, a self organized journal without any scientific publisher behind.
It is, IMO, a very important initiative: The attempt to bypass scientific publishers altogether.
It is very clear to many that publishers make an incredible profit out of the work of editors, reviewers and authors. And often we pay the prestige of the publication. For example, why an open access fully digital publication can cost 800 British pounds in I-Perception and 8490 British pounds in Nature Human Behavior? Note that both publishers give you exactly the same product. We pay for the brand. Note also that Sage too is making a profit when they ask you 800 pounds for I-perception.
We should be careful when we spend our public money for a publication.
All the best,
m
This is great Jonathan,
I'll contact you off list to talk a little more on biorxiv and psyarxiv.
Just the other day I was approached to review an article - but as you
all know there is no payment for reviewing articles. It is hard for
someone outside of a very large organisation to find the time to review
others articles. This harks back to the discussion around how ripe the
publication system is for disruption. The basic argument goes something
like : The journals are paid to publish and host researcher's articles,
but the journals don't pay reviewers and others involved in the process.
There is nothing propping up the mechanism of publishing at the bottom
end, so the machine will eventually grind to a halt and the top will fall.
There are also other common arguments around the right of free access to
research publications for people outside of academic institutions and
large companies.
In this day and age of online social networks, it really isn't that
difficult to gather a publication's weight directly from citation
frequency and other metrics - no matter where the article is published.
Similarly the comments and opinions of readers can be integrated and
associated with publications on the same site on the internet - without
the need to lengthy antiquated review processes. In my opinion the whole
publication system should be reenvisioned and modernised.
Aaron Swartz should not have been reprocessed by the fabric of the
west's systems without instigating change.
Matt
On 23/5/23 22:54, Jonathan Z Simon wrote:
> Matt,
>
> In this context I would avoid the term “publishing”, since that has
> such a different meaning for so many people, but I personally do take
> advantage of posting preprints on a public server (like arXiv) almost
> every chance I get.
>
> Preprints (preprint = a fully written paper that is not (yet)
> published) have been useful for many decades, originally in physics,
> as a way of getting one's research results out in a timely manner.
> Other key benefits are that it establishes primacy of the research
> findings, that it is citable in other researchers' papers, and that it
> can be promoted by social media such as this listserve (more below on
> this). But the biggest benefit is typically getting the paper out into
> the world for others to learn from, without having to wait based on
> the whims of publishers and individual reviewers. If most of your
> published papers get accepted eventually, and the most important
> findings don’t get cut in the review process, then preprints are
> something you should definitely consider. Reviewers often make
> published papers better, but maybe not so much better that it’s worth
> waiting many months for others to see your results.
>
> arXiv is the oldest website for posting preprints, and if its Audio
> and Speech section is active, that might be a good place to post your
> preprints. But there may be other options for you. As an auditory
> neuroscientist I typically use bioRxiv (e.g., "Changes in Cortical
> Directional Connectivity during Difficult Listening in Younger and
> Older Adults”
> <https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.05.19.541500>), but I
> also use PsyArXiv if the topic is more perceptual than neural (e.g.,
> “Attention Mobilization as a Modulator of Listening Effort: Evidence
> from Pupillometry” <https://psyarxiv.com/u5xw2>). [See what I mean
> about promoting your research on social media?]
>
> I’m sure others have opinions too.
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>> On May 22, 2023, at 6:45 PM, Matt Flax <flatmax@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> Is anyone publishing on arXiv at the moment ? It seems that to
>> publish there they rely on a web of trust.
>>
>> There is an Audio and Speech section of arXiv which would suit our
>> community.
>>
>> thanks
>>
>> Matt
>
> --
> Jonathan Z. Simon (he/him)
> University of Maryland
> Dept. of Electrical & Computer Engineering / Dept. of Biology
> / Institute for Systems Research
> 8223 Paint Branch Dr.
> College Park, MD 20742 USA
> Office: 1-301-405-3645, Lab: 1-301-405-9604, Fax: 1-301-314-9281
> http://www.isr.umd.edu/Labs/CSSL/simonlab/
>
>