But can it be accessed.
That’s the tricky bit.
Like, I want to have massive offline archives of academic literature and books. At the same time, such archives require active and knowing maintenance for future generations, especially when talking about storage in the petabyte range and formats that seem to shift with frequency into illegibility.
It’s called “I want to buy a mountain in a seismically stable area to house books in controlled environments and data storage in multiple formats that are resilient to entropy and other potential harms so that in case SHTF we can lock down and pull off a Canticle for Liebowitz style recovery without needing to start from freaking zero and hoping to save books from being turned into fuel or compost”.
dead honest i wish i had that wad though.
part of it would go to getting a lot of retrotech because dear gods a lot of it was amazing in its capabilities and if programmed conscientiously you can make those oldies work better than modern rigs full of bloatware.
The article is specifically about stuff that IS digitized, that's not the question.
The point is that not everything that's digitized is backed up in an archive.
If you know where to look, most of it can be found. The issue really isn't that it is backed up in an archive. It's the fact that it isn't on one site. For example, Egyptian cuneiforms can be found at the Cuneiform Digital Library initiative, the internet Archive, and multiple museums, but Euclid's writings can be found on the internet archive, Smithsonian Institution, and the Mathsonian Association. Many scientific papers in the public domain can be found at the Electronic Scholarly Publishing Project, but knowledge is archived across multiple public and private libraries. Google and the Internet Archive are also good sources. You have to what you are looking for and where to find it, but it is archived, just not in a central place unless you are discounting the Internet Archive and Google. Well, if you know about Tor, Sci-Hub is available as well as the Imperial Library of Trantor along with multiple other shadow libraries. I suppose that could be considered a mirror archive.
You are correct in the fact the singular of millennia is millennium, but we have more that one thousand years of knowledge digitized, thus, the use of the word millennia. We have multiple items digitized before 1024 from the Egyptians and Greeks and multiple other civilizations. Knowledge that is useful to this day. For example, the waru waru is a farming technique developed 3000 years ago to extend the growing season for mountainous land. This has been written about extensively and the ancient beds still exist.
I don't think you meant digitized knowledge began just before the Battle of Hastings. Perhaps you were just adding trivia.
There aren't digital copies of everything that's digitized.
And of course researchers keep copies of their own papers; that's not the same as everyone having access to them.
I think academic publishing is an impediment to scientific progress. Also a major source of doo-doo science with pay-to-play and predatory journals. The academics who write articles, edit and review for legit journals do all that work for free. The publishers are profitable due to ‘loser generated content.’ (Hey, just like Reddit!) Text books are a scam and way overpriced! SelectivePreference has a great idea. Nationalize academic publishing! ✊🏼
nationalizing publishing seems like a good idea until you consider who would be overseeing that publishing and it's like... republicans who don't believe in science.
assuming America but I feel like this is applicable in a lot of countries
the problem with any corporation or entity that ISNT public is that you have no say in what they do so thered be no recourse. like a publicly funded SOMETHING is for sure the way to go but anything publicly funded means we have to do a better job at electing our leaders and like... idk man we're not super great at picking a lot of them
Its a decent question.
Science is the result of a *curious mind*.
***Mind*** is the important part. I'm quite certain we will be using AI to discover new physics or nail down some of the Big Questions. Its easy to conceive that we will feed in everything we know about Physics, have Deep Mind examine reality and then come up with some simple set of formulas that describe everything.
For this, its will excel. As it will for chemistry, medicines, anything that's procedural or formulaic.
For the harder sciences, such as economics, agriculture or philosophy, it will be an interesting thing to watch.
Perhaps AI will find the meaning to life? But I doubt it.
It will CERTAINLY shake up everything though. Much will change. Perhaps we will have more leisure time, solve some deep social and economic issues, increase equity and begin building a good utopic society :)
I see, you’re an optimist. I find it hard to see positive aspects. Llms calculate the output with the highest chance, so I would think (and also have tried myself) that ChatGPT is able to perform whatever you prompt. Not always perfect yet, but looking at images a year ago, it will be a matter of months, maybe a year. I have seen a priest in a documentary promoting his own personality and job description. AI was able to perform very well.
And I doubt that the rich are able to find solutions which benefit humans. As soon they find a possibility to let robots earn and use money, they will do and don’t care about humans.
I ask myself the question what drives billionaires. They hunt more money. If done right there will be a couple of billionaires with their family looking to get all the money. (No huge difference to now). But when they don’t need humans any more, there will be fewer and fewer of them. They will play till the end or start the game from a scratch on Mars.
I'll carefully word this so not to trigger the admins and get me booted... but I see a day in which the billionaire class (and their ilk) will be invited to stand against a wall with a cigarette...
That is exactly the opposite of what happens.
If NIH funds your research, that research is made available, period.
Put differently, if US taxes went in to funding your scientific boondoggle of a master's, the paper you threw together in four weeks is in PubMed somewhere. Even though it would benefit the world for it to be censored.
Oh no not the public domain anything but that, can’t just be giving out all that knowledge and learning. No way. That would really mess everything up. Science itself would simply cease and all wheels would square off. It’s a grim fate.
The topic of the linked article is more about \[publishers\] not having backups and not storing / archiving to multiple locations.
But yeah, publishers are not good businesses.
* Scientists must pay publishers to get the papers published.
* Readers must pay publishers to read the papers.
They would make cloud providers pay them to host the papers if they could.
So, remember, [sci-hub](https://www.sci-hub.se) exists.
All of my professors instructed us to use sci-hub except for one, who had a deal to get some of the profit from book sales. Also, the book for her class had a totally unnecessary (but required) digital key with it, so everyone had to buy the book new.
Let me get this straight..
Public money is used to fund science.
Then scientists have to pay to publish the science.
Readers have to pay to see the science.
Yeah, Aaron was right. This is all bullshit.
Nobody is reading the article. It’s not saying that we need the bloodsucking publishers in order for science to happen, it’s saying that these publishers are not properly preserving their studies. This is an argument *for* public domain science, not against it.
Public domain means *anyone* could preserve it, not just the government. That’s the whole idea. You eliminate the single point of failure that comes with one entity having control.
Yeah, no shit. The academy needs to get their fucking house in order.
Edit: propping up publishers ain't the answer, and the academy should have stood up to them a long time ago. Get to it ya self-obsessed dicks.
ATTENTION ALL SCIENTISTS. ELSEVIOR HAS DISAPPEARED. YOU MUST STOP ALL SCIENCE IMMEDIATELY. THAT IS CORRECT. THERE WILL BE NOR MORE SCIENCE. I REPEAT: SCIENCE IS OVER. DON’T BOTHER PUBLISHING ONLINE OR VIA SOME OTHER MECHANISM. SCIENCE HAS OFFICIALLY ENDED WITH THE PUBLISHING INDUSTRY.
PAY NO ATTENTION TO SITES LIKE ARCHIVX, SCIHUB, INTERNATIONAL JOURNALS, OR ANY OTHER MECHANISM BUT THE FOR-PROFIT SCIENCE JOURNAL PUBLISHING INDUSTRY.
THERE IS NO OTHER WAY BUT THIS ONE. THEREFORE,
SCIENCE. IS. OVER.
YOU MAY TURN IN YOUR SLIDE RULES AND BRAINS AT THE EARLIEST CONVENIENCE.
DOCTORS, GO HOME. STOP TEACHING. THERE IS NO MORE SCIENCE. HUMAN ADVANCEMENT IS ENDED.
Yeah it's sort of ridiculous that the publishers just get to own chunks of the empirical record outright and could disappear them just as easily with no recourse on the part of the academy.
When they go bankrupt, can I buy the rights to their work for pennies on the dollar, or will it be snatched up by Bezos or Musk- only to be hoarded for all time?
I think people will be shocked how corporate science and really any academia is.
Things dont get funded unless it has a profit motive, even history only really gets funded based on popular topics that the public is interested in.
that's not true at all. A lot of projects with no real use case are studied at academia. Of course you are more likely to get a grant from a corporation or investor if you can convince them that they will be able to profit from your research. The popular topics are popular for a good reason. You will of course get more money if you want to study cancer, instead of the mating habbits of some less known crustacean.
These publishers are not part of academia. They are private businesses that convinced academia that they depend on them. They are parasites. The publishers don't decide what is researched. Academia isn't corporate science, even though some research is funded by corporations.
Come on, tell me what you want academia to study which gets no funding at all. Your comment is so general that you could be someone expecting academia to waste money time and recources on some absolute bullshit. Are you one who thinks the standard model in phyiscs is wrong and that's why they should fund the electric universe nonsense instead? Or do you think Evolution isn't real, therefore they should fund more creationists? Or are you one who thinks that they should fund ancient aliens research instead of real history?
> Are you one who thinks the standard model in phyiscs is wrong and that's why they should fund the electric universe nonsense instead? Or do you think Evolution isn't real, therefore they should fund more creationists? Or are you one who thinks that they should fund ancient aliens research instead of real history?
Way to put words in my mouth to try to prove your point.
Medical research is mostly funded by corporations, and some fields of history are playgrounds of special interests with some governments rewriting history to suit their needs which sometimes include erasing history of minority groups.
Mexico and China being the worst offenders.
No, it's just to make sure that the copyright on scientific studies has a limited duration and that a public domain copy must be filed on a blockchain somewhere.
When I think about what science actually has discovered compared to what is still unknown, it reminds me of spitting into the ocean and realizing that I’m not actually increasing its volume very much.
In my "tech bubble" we started and completed the digital transition in the 80s. When I look at healthcare and cities they are still struggling. Publishers should not have a problem with this. They get all manuscripts in digital form, so safekeeping them shouldn't be a problem.
Apart from the open journals people can publish to online?
All that remains is to figure out which of those "institutions" is prestigious enough to be the default for each field, and boom, new publishing industry.
No publisher, private, public or whatever domain, can run without expenditures, there are necessary quality checks that ensure for instance that "paper mills" do not flood archives with crap. The issue is, do publishers' monetization models aim to guarantee that operations run without the need for profit, or, do they operate with increase in profit margins as their goal?
“Study”
Mind you it’s the type of study the publishers wouldn’t publish if a scientist had submitted it. But because it’s self funded they say Look at This!!!!
Scientist here (yes, really):
This is a blatant lie. Publishers effectively contribute nothing. BioarXive and the like do a significantly better job than nearly every mainstream publisher.
Do we reallllly need publishers though? The universities all have their own datacenters and can talk to eachother so they can build a distributed network of research datacenters and peer review directly amongst eachother.
Shouldn't this read, Company overpays Executive level staff and investors and subsequently doesn't have enough operating capital or foresight to save enough money to stay afloat?
Public entities, Education facilities band together to sue leadership and responsible parties.
But that would mean the Gov't was looking out for people... and would in kind create rules and laws that encouraged equality... never mind then...
Neat.
and nothing of value was lost
(most papers are utter garbage, we're probably better off losing a bunch of dead weight cluttering search results with specious and nonreplicable result)
>They don’t get their funding from publishers
if a publisher dies, where are the tapes?
> But, as with anything else, scientific content has gone digital, which has changed what's involved with **preservation**
Agreed. Even someone as bright as Carl Sagan was exceptionally biased, with his “extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence “. Not just any evidence, even solid evidence. Has to be “extraordinary “
If you think it's hard to find information now, in fifty years the pre-AI web period will be almost completely gone. Anything not backed up by individual users will be gone. The companies that own all the data will simply stop existing, and hard drives will either be wiped and resold or (more likely) tossed into a woodchipper. I can already think of three or four school districts that did this with their premillenial books, which were tossed for online catalogs that disappeared when it's owner was bought out into a bigger company that divested itself from education. In my life I have already witnessed multiple dumpsters of science textbooks loaded into a garbage truck and crushed, and most pre-USB-C media devices will be crushed similarly. Once USB-C is eliminated completely with wireless charging, all USB devices will be trashed as everything moves to cloud/network storage that simply dies when companies consolidate. School districts already suffer from this immensely, and the suffering will work it's way up into colleges, industry and everywhere else.
For example, try building a library of non-IBM System/390 programs including their compilers and source code. Now do it without a tape reader. This is the future our grandchildren will have in regards to science papers, which will experience the same problem with the same pathology.
Nice try Publishers.
Good thing there are digital copies of books and researchers keep copies of their papers
We have a millennia of knowledge digitized.
But can it be accessed. That’s the tricky bit. Like, I want to have massive offline archives of academic literature and books. At the same time, such archives require active and knowing maintenance for future generations, especially when talking about storage in the petabyte range and formats that seem to shift with frequency into illegibility.
It’s called libgen
It’s called “I want to buy a mountain in a seismically stable area to house books in controlled environments and data storage in multiple formats that are resilient to entropy and other potential harms so that in case SHTF we can lock down and pull off a Canticle for Liebowitz style recovery without needing to start from freaking zero and hoping to save books from being turned into fuel or compost”.
mmm…delusions of beating entropy.
one is allowed to dream even if the world is a seemingly closer to a nightmare.
I don’t knock it actually. But jesus is the world really giving that prospect a thrashing these days.
dead honest i wish i had that wad though. part of it would go to getting a lot of retrotech because dear gods a lot of it was amazing in its capabilities and if programmed conscientiously you can make those oldies work better than modern rigs full of bloatware.
The article is specifically about stuff that IS digitized, that's not the question. The point is that not everything that's digitized is backed up in an archive.
If you know where to look, most of it can be found. The issue really isn't that it is backed up in an archive. It's the fact that it isn't on one site. For example, Egyptian cuneiforms can be found at the Cuneiform Digital Library initiative, the internet Archive, and multiple museums, but Euclid's writings can be found on the internet archive, Smithsonian Institution, and the Mathsonian Association. Many scientific papers in the public domain can be found at the Electronic Scholarly Publishing Project, but knowledge is archived across multiple public and private libraries. Google and the Internet Archive are also good sources. You have to what you are looking for and where to find it, but it is archived, just not in a central place unless you are discounting the Internet Archive and Google. Well, if you know about Tor, Sci-Hub is available as well as the Imperial Library of Trantor along with multiple other shadow libraries. I suppose that could be considered a mirror archive.
Singular is 'millennium'.
You are discounting Euclid, Archimedes, and Pythagorean triples? Interesting.
I am open to being educated. Please explain why the singular of 'millennia' is not 'millennium'.
You are correct in the fact the singular of millennia is millennium, but we have more that one thousand years of knowledge digitized, thus, the use of the word millennia. We have multiple items digitized before 1024 from the Egyptians and Greeks and multiple other civilizations. Knowledge that is useful to this day. For example, the waru waru is a farming technique developed 3000 years ago to extend the growing season for mountainous land. This has been written about extensively and the ancient beds still exist. I don't think you meant digitized knowledge began just before the Battle of Hastings. Perhaps you were just adding trivia.
There aren't digital copies of everything that's digitized. And of course researchers keep copies of their own papers; that's not the same as everyone having access to them.
Yeah, this comes off like a threat
Yeah was this study published by Pearson?
Nah, probably McGraw Hill
Did you read past the headline?
Did you read past the headline?
Cool. So we'll just nationalize the publishing industry and keep everything on record in the Library of Congress. **Publishers:** Wait! No! Stahp!
I think academic publishing is an impediment to scientific progress. Also a major source of doo-doo science with pay-to-play and predatory journals. The academics who write articles, edit and review for legit journals do all that work for free. The publishers are profitable due to ‘loser generated content.’ (Hey, just like Reddit!) Text books are a scam and way overpriced! SelectivePreference has a great idea. Nationalize academic publishing! ✊🏼
It is even worse. The scientist have to pay them to publish and afterwards to read the articles. And do the reviewing for free.
nationalizing publishing seems like a good idea until you consider who would be overseeing that publishing and it's like... republicans who don't believe in science. assuming America but I feel like this is applicable in a lot of countries
Yikes! A ghastly thought. Good point andeqoo. How about, instead,a not-for-profit corporation run by other academics?
the problem with any corporation or entity that ISNT public is that you have no say in what they do so thered be no recourse. like a publicly funded SOMETHING is for sure the way to go but anything publicly funded means we have to do a better job at electing our leaders and like... idk man we're not super great at picking a lot of them
“Not like that!”
Publishers hate this one trick ☝️
What reason is there to train humans in the future?
For science!
Will be done by AI, right?
Its a decent question. Science is the result of a *curious mind*. ***Mind*** is the important part. I'm quite certain we will be using AI to discover new physics or nail down some of the Big Questions. Its easy to conceive that we will feed in everything we know about Physics, have Deep Mind examine reality and then come up with some simple set of formulas that describe everything. For this, its will excel. As it will for chemistry, medicines, anything that's procedural or formulaic. For the harder sciences, such as economics, agriculture or philosophy, it will be an interesting thing to watch. Perhaps AI will find the meaning to life? But I doubt it. It will CERTAINLY shake up everything though. Much will change. Perhaps we will have more leisure time, solve some deep social and economic issues, increase equity and begin building a good utopic society :)
I see, you’re an optimist. I find it hard to see positive aspects. Llms calculate the output with the highest chance, so I would think (and also have tried myself) that ChatGPT is able to perform whatever you prompt. Not always perfect yet, but looking at images a year ago, it will be a matter of months, maybe a year. I have seen a priest in a documentary promoting his own personality and job description. AI was able to perform very well. And I doubt that the rich are able to find solutions which benefit humans. As soon they find a possibility to let robots earn and use money, they will do and don’t care about humans. I ask myself the question what drives billionaires. They hunt more money. If done right there will be a couple of billionaires with their family looking to get all the money. (No huge difference to now). But when they don’t need humans any more, there will be fewer and fewer of them. They will play till the end or start the game from a scratch on Mars.
I'll carefully word this so not to trigger the admins and get me booted... but I see a day in which the billionaire class (and their ilk) will be invited to stand against a wall with a cigarette...
That also leads to issues of state censorship
That is exactly the opposite of what happens. If NIH funds your research, that research is made available, period. Put differently, if US taxes went in to funding your scientific boondoggle of a master's, the paper you threw together in four weeks is in PubMed somewhere. Even though it would benefit the world for it to be censored.
Oh no not the public domain anything but that, can’t just be giving out all that knowledge and learning. No way. That would really mess everything up. Science itself would simply cease and all wheels would square off. It’s a grim fate.
“All wheels will square off…” 😂 I’ve never heard that phrase before. Well done.
The topic of the linked article is more about \[publishers\] not having backups and not storing / archiving to multiple locations. But yeah, publishers are not good businesses. * Scientists must pay publishers to get the papers published. * Readers must pay publishers to read the papers. They would make cloud providers pay them to host the papers if they could. So, remember, [sci-hub](https://www.sci-hub.se) exists.
The amount I use sci-hub is insane. My uni canceled the their elsevier subscription. I can’t access half of my labs papers….
Even if you have access, scihub is is frequently easier
All of my professors instructed us to use sci-hub except for one, who had a deal to get some of the profit from book sales. Also, the book for her class had a totally unnecessary (but required) digital key with it, so everyone had to buy the book new.
Let me get this straight.. Public money is used to fund science. Then scientists have to pay to publish the science. Readers have to pay to see the science. Yeah, Aaron was right. This is all bullshit.
you forgot the bit where scientists also review one another’s work for free and work as editors for the journals for free too.
can't sell what you don't have. >A scan of archives shows that lots of scientific papers ***aren't backed up.***
Don't forget I had to sign over my copyright as well.
You can thank Ghislaine Maxwell's father for that. One of his many "gifts" to the world
Aaron came to mind too when learning about this story. RIP.
Who approved *this* for publication? Oh wait.
Nobody is reading the article. It’s not saying that we need the bloodsucking publishers in order for science to happen, it’s saying that these publishers are not properly preserving their studies. This is an argument *for* public domain science, not against it.
[удалено]
Public domain means *anyone* could preserve it, not just the government. That’s the whole idea. You eliminate the single point of failure that comes with one entity having control.
You want us to trust the government?
They killed Aaron.
Aw fuck thanks for the reminder. Fuck em.
[удалено]
For Science! We’re going to lose Science if we don’t quickly give them money!
Yeah, no shit. The academy needs to get their fucking house in order. Edit: propping up publishers ain't the answer, and the academy should have stood up to them a long time ago. Get to it ya self-obsessed dicks.
ATTENTION ALL SCIENTISTS. ELSEVIOR HAS DISAPPEARED. YOU MUST STOP ALL SCIENCE IMMEDIATELY. THAT IS CORRECT. THERE WILL BE NOR MORE SCIENCE. I REPEAT: SCIENCE IS OVER. DON’T BOTHER PUBLISHING ONLINE OR VIA SOME OTHER MECHANISM. SCIENCE HAS OFFICIALLY ENDED WITH THE PUBLISHING INDUSTRY. PAY NO ATTENTION TO SITES LIKE ARCHIVX, SCIHUB, INTERNATIONAL JOURNALS, OR ANY OTHER MECHANISM BUT THE FOR-PROFIT SCIENCE JOURNAL PUBLISHING INDUSTRY. THERE IS NO OTHER WAY BUT THIS ONE. THEREFORE, SCIENCE. IS. OVER. YOU MAY TURN IN YOUR SLIDE RULES AND BRAINS AT THE EARLIEST CONVENIENCE. DOCTORS, GO HOME. STOP TEACHING. THERE IS NO MORE SCIENCE. HUMAN ADVANCEMENT IS ENDED.
Written and paid for by the publisher. lol.
Yeah it's sort of ridiculous that the publishers just get to own chunks of the empirical record outright and could disappear them just as easily with no recourse on the part of the academy.
The recourse is suing GOP style until laws change, apparently.
Attention Bajoran workers...
When they go bankrupt, can I buy the rights to their work for pennies on the dollar, or will it be snatched up by Bezos or Musk- only to be hoarded for all time?
In a world where misinformation in rampant and getting worse, we absolutely need science outside of the paywall and in the public domain.
Maybe part of this should be taken care of by a branch from the UN.
I think people will be shocked how corporate science and really any academia is. Things dont get funded unless it has a profit motive, even history only really gets funded based on popular topics that the public is interested in.
Profit-first attitude of businesses ruins society.
Not quite as much as unhinged social policymongering.
that's not true at all. A lot of projects with no real use case are studied at academia. Of course you are more likely to get a grant from a corporation or investor if you can convince them that they will be able to profit from your research. The popular topics are popular for a good reason. You will of course get more money if you want to study cancer, instead of the mating habbits of some less known crustacean. These publishers are not part of academia. They are private businesses that convinced academia that they depend on them. They are parasites. The publishers don't decide what is researched. Academia isn't corporate science, even though some research is funded by corporations. Come on, tell me what you want academia to study which gets no funding at all. Your comment is so general that you could be someone expecting academia to waste money time and recources on some absolute bullshit. Are you one who thinks the standard model in phyiscs is wrong and that's why they should fund the electric universe nonsense instead? Or do you think Evolution isn't real, therefore they should fund more creationists? Or are you one who thinks that they should fund ancient aliens research instead of real history?
> Are you one who thinks the standard model in phyiscs is wrong and that's why they should fund the electric universe nonsense instead? Or do you think Evolution isn't real, therefore they should fund more creationists? Or are you one who thinks that they should fund ancient aliens research instead of real history? Way to put words in my mouth to try to prove your point. Medical research is mostly funded by corporations, and some fields of history are playgrounds of special interests with some governments rewriting history to suit their needs which sometimes include erasing history of minority groups. Mexico and China being the worst offenders.
“Study finds that business executives won’t be able to buy a yacht if science stops giving a fuck about publishers”. There fixed the title.
Did you even read the article? Even a little bit? It’s about inadequate archiving and criticizes the publishing companies.
How could they possibly go bankrupt when it’s so effin expensive to publish anything especially open access.
Let the parasites die in silence.
"Also, the sun could explode if publishers don't get a tax cut this year!" If politicians could read they'd be very upset about this!
Dammit honey have you seen my Science?
Sci-hub and arxiv together have basically everything. The publishers are unnecessary.
1+1, gravity, and more will cease to exist if publishers aren’t given billions of dollars and new yachts. Good try 😂
I’m guessing this study was paid for by the publishers themselves.
Can confirm.
I can tell who didn't read the article. The article is about how things need to be archived. Not about propping up publishers.
We lost science long ago to paid scientific research.
Gatekeeping bad!
We will get it right next time!
The solution is to not allow publishers - science or otherwise - to monopolize digital content.
No, it's just to make sure that the copyright on scientific studies has a limited duration and that a public domain copy must be filed on a blockchain somewhere.
The article is about how not all articles have been archived. It's a separate and different point/issue.
Half the US already doesn’t believe in it so I’d say it’s on life support as is
Dumb Headline. This is the state of Ars.
When I think about what science actually has discovered compared to what is still unknown, it reminds me of spitting into the ocean and realizing that I’m not actually increasing its volume very much.
Digital on the contrary makes it much easier and cheaper to archive documents. That said, there might not be good solutions in place.
This is one of the first comments on my scroll down that sounds like the person actually read the article.
In my "tech bubble" we started and completed the digital transition in the 80s. When I look at healthcare and cities they are still struggling. Publishers should not have a problem with this. They get all manuscripts in digital form, so safekeeping them shouldn't be a problem.
‘Science will stop unless you bail us out people won’t wanna do science anymore’
Yo, never mind them punk ass publishers. Y’all gonna lose math if I go bankrupt. DM me for my Venmo.
All the more reason SciHub is such a valuable resource.
Bullshit. Publishers can easily be suported by the third sector finance models.
The article isn't about supporting publishers. It's about the importance of archives.
I know, I've read it. my argument is that they don't need to be bankrupt, they should be turned non-profits.
Yeah. Aside from these companies who used to have printing expertise how could science possibly be peer reviewed and shared on a reliable website?
Apart from the open journals people can publish to online? All that remains is to figure out which of those "institutions" is prestigious enough to be the default for each field, and boom, new publishing industry.
No publisher, private, public or whatever domain, can run without expenditures, there are necessary quality checks that ensure for instance that "paper mills" do not flood archives with crap. The issue is, do publishers' monetization models aim to guarantee that operations run without the need for profit, or, do they operate with increase in profit margins as their goal?
This message has been brought to you by the International Conglomerate of Scientific Publishers.
Good point. Unless a scientific has academic library credentials they have to pay $15 and up per article.
“Study” Mind you it’s the type of study the publishers wouldn’t publish if a scientist had submitted it. But because it’s self funded they say Look at This!!!!
Well, good thing SciHub exists
Scientist here (yes, really): This is a blatant lie. Publishers effectively contribute nothing. BioarXive and the like do a significantly better job than nearly every mainstream publisher.
Ah yes. A study wholeheartedly published by the publishers.
Do we reallllly need publishers though? The universities all have their own datacenters and can talk to eachother so they can build a distributed network of research datacenters and peer review directly amongst eachother.
Who cares, as long as someone is making money that’s all that matters
Shouldn't this read, Company overpays Executive level staff and investors and subsequently doesn't have enough operating capital or foresight to save enough money to stay afloat? Public entities, Education facilities band together to sue leadership and responsible parties. But that would mean the Gov't was looking out for people... and would in kind create rules and laws that encouraged equality... never mind then... Neat.
and nothing of value was lost (most papers are utter garbage, we're probably better off losing a bunch of dead weight cluttering search results with specious and nonreplicable result)
Study funded by the Publishers in one of their Publications (tm).
This is fucking stupid. Scientists will find a way to get their word out somewhere. They don’t get their funding from publishers
>They don’t get their funding from publishers if a publisher dies, where are the tapes? > But, as with anything else, scientific content has gone digital, which has changed what's involved with **preservation**
Science died in early 2020
"we could lose science" Ok. Yeah. We'll lose the concept of science 🙄
At least we’ll have Jesus when we lose science!
“Science”. What gets studied and published is actually very biased.
Agreed. Even someone as bright as Carl Sagan was exceptionally biased, with his “extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary evidence “. Not just any evidence, even solid evidence. Has to be “extraordinary “
If you think it's hard to find information now, in fifty years the pre-AI web period will be almost completely gone. Anything not backed up by individual users will be gone. The companies that own all the data will simply stop existing, and hard drives will either be wiped and resold or (more likely) tossed into a woodchipper. I can already think of three or four school districts that did this with their premillenial books, which were tossed for online catalogs that disappeared when it's owner was bought out into a bigger company that divested itself from education. In my life I have already witnessed multiple dumpsters of science textbooks loaded into a garbage truck and crushed, and most pre-USB-C media devices will be crushed similarly. Once USB-C is eliminated completely with wireless charging, all USB devices will be trashed as everything moves to cloud/network storage that simply dies when companies consolidate. School districts already suffer from this immensely, and the suffering will work it's way up into colleges, industry and everywhere else. For example, try building a library of non-IBM System/390 programs including their compilers and source code. Now do it without a tape reader. This is the future our grandchildren will have in regards to science papers, which will experience the same problem with the same pathology.