Comments on: Boycott Elsevier!

By: e-cigarette

e-cigarette — Sat, 09 Mar 2013 00:17:26 +0000

Elsevier seems to be not significantly worse than the ACM, for example, and there are not good open-access journals for TCS. BTW John Wilbanks has many perspectives…

By: Shtetl-Optimized » Blog Archive » Aaron Swartz (1986-2013)

Shtetl-Optimized » Blog Archive » Aaron Swartz (1986-2013) — Sun, 13 Jan 2013 23:14:26 +0000

[...] research should be freely available to the public. We can honor Aaron’s memory by supporting the open science movement, and helping the world catch up with him [...]

By: Irrationality of reviewing « QuantumBlah

Irrationality of reviewing « QuantumBlah — Wed, 29 Aug 2012 09:52:47 +0000

[...] do we review papers? As pointed out in the boycott against Elsevier, with the big commercial publishers, reviewers are doing free [...]

By: Rudolf Olah

Rudolf Olah — Sun, 06 May 2012 23:14:57 +0000

The ACM shouldn’t even come into this discussion. They’re an association that does some publishing but they aren’t a publisher. In fact, when you join the association you’re given access to the catalogs of other publishers such as Springer. The subscription fee for a professional is significantly less than Elsevier’s fee. Elsevier’s fees are ridiculous.

By: LOLsevier | yourbrainondrugs.net

LOLsevier | yourbrainondrugs.net — Fri, 16 Mar 2012 16:22:21 +0000

[...] Boycott Elsevier! (scottaaronson.com) [...]

By: Charlie-Boo

Charlie-Boo — Sun, 19 Feb 2012 17:17:06 +0000

If you’re going to boycott a publisher, why not base it on content rather than price? Springer published the completely insipid text “Adapting Proofs-As-Programs” full of unsubstantiated claims that it applies to the problem of program synthesis, including several incomplete bogus examples. Springer also recently published a book containing what is claimed to be an elementary proof of Fermat’s Last Theorem.

By: Fourteenth Linkfest

Fourteenth Linkfest — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 19:35:43 +0000

[...] Scott Aaronson: Boycott Elsevier! [...]

By: azxtlx

azxtlx — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 19:18:14 +0000

Mr. Aaronson, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for making your lecture material and research interests accessible on the world wide web. I have no professional relationship to computer science of any kind, it simply provokes my curiosity.

John Wilbanks compiles and contrasts a lot of perspectives about the future of academic publishing. There are internet available videos of his Oxford and MIT presentations and they are quite densely interesting

By: Scott

Scott — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 14:34:55 +0000

Gus: Michael can clarify himself, but I imagine what he had in mind is that there might be reasonable individuals working at the traditional publishing houses, who once performed a useful service but now stand to lose their jobs in the open-access world, and therefore have in interest in delaying that world for as long as possible. Such individuals would indeed deserve our sympathy but not our support.

By: Gus

Gus — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 14:08:26 +0000

Quoting by memory from Nielsen’s new book: Regarding traditional publishers, “they deserve our sympathy, but not our support.” Sounds a lot like sympathy to me. I was quite surprised to see him tread so lightly upon traditional publishing in that book. Where was his anger?

That said, I agree that he’s done much for open science. How one could advocate so strongly for open science and NOT be openly hostile to traditional publishers is beyond me.