[setr]

I think prestige is a very unfair characterization. It’s my belief that most people just want their research to be seen and engaged with by their peers (it is, of course, the fundamental purpose of producing a paper). Universities however want prestige, and enforce the policy “publish or perish”.

The problem is still as you say — the only way to do so reliably is to give up your ownership to a prestigious journal (because prestigious journals are widely read by the relevant folk).

Ultimately the fix is up to the top universities. If Stanford suddenly says all CS papers are now being published on SciHub first (or through some new filter), who’s going to argue? Every CS researcher will immediately add it to their reading list... because they want the good shit

[impendia]

I am an academic researcher (math). Unfortunately, prestige hits the mark.

Whenever I am being compared with my peers -- for raises, for possible grant funding, if I apply for a job at another university -- people will look at publication lists and see who has published in "good" journals.

And when you say that "prestigious journals are widely read" -- honestly, journals aren't really ever read as such. Researchers will look for individual papers they're interested in. The choice of journal is a signaling mechanism and little else.

It is true that universities want prestige... but, honestly, tenured faculty don't often care too much about what their employers want. What a panel at a granting agency thinks of my record, is more important than what my department chair and dean think.

Your idea that e.g. Stanford should order their faculty to publish on SciHub is an interesting one. For better or worse, university administrators don't tend to have or exercise much authority, and any attempt to order faculty to do anything is likely to be met with fierce resistance.

[rland]

I wonder if this could be solved by a sort of collective contract:

A university (and its faculty) sign a contract to publish only in open-access journals. But the contract doesn't actually go into effect until it has signatories of n% of top universities (ivies, UCs, etc).

Therefore, the awful transition (of an individual university being disadvantaged) can be alleviated. Once the contract goes into effect, the pressure is directed towards the other party: those who don't publish open access will need to justify it.

[Vinnl]

> Ultimately the fix is up to the top universities. If Stanford suddenly says all CS papers are now being published on SciHub first (or through some new filter), who’s going to argue?

Unfortunately, if they have staff that also intend to, or should prepare for, working somewhere else after Stanford (which is very common in an academic career), then those are likely to revolt.

You could see this happen with the introduction of "Plan S" in many European countries, where researchers were afraid that "top" journals were no longer accessible to them and that that would hurt their standing in the field and future opportunities in, primarily, the US.

[BeetleB]

> It’s my belief that most people just want their research to be seen and engaged with by their peers (it is, of course, the fundamental purpose of producing a paper). Universities however want prestige, and enforce the policy “publish or perish”.

The two are one and the same. What you call "Universities" is simply "professors at the universities". Department policies for tenure are set by a bunch of professors. The dean of the college is always a professor. There's no "us" vs "them".

[setr]

Sure there is. Developers have very different goals and responsibilities than their managers (regardless of whether they were once developers themselves).

The dean serves a different master than the researching/teaching professor. It would be absurd to assume their incentives and goals are always the same, or even aligned.

[BeetleB]

The difference is that managers ultimately have to answer to a different type of crowd (consumers, shareholders, whatever). External pressures play a role. At universities, it is professors all the way. The people who are on NSF grant committees are professors. Journal editors are research professors.

There is no external pressure on these people. NSF grantors don't value Nature publications because they have to answer to the public. They value it because they value it.

If a professor becomes a dean or head of NSF, and they decide to make changes to what is considered prestigious, the only opposition they'll get is from their peers.

[hollerith]

I agree that it was harsh for me to focus on the desire for prestige. It would've been kinder of me to focus on the need for the professor or apprentice professor to remain employed and, like you say, to have a positive influence on the community of professors.