Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by TaXaZ 1682 days ago
The devils are in the details. This does not still justify current model and the steep price they are paid (by taxpayers, FYI a typical university pay millions of dollar to these institutions). Consider openreview by ICLR[1] as an counter example for your claim. The maintenance, quality control, software development is not as steep as current gatekeepers advertise yet their review quality is much higher (network/transparency effect). Not to mention the profit margin of scientific publication is 3x of the Apple (38% for Elsevier) and it should be because the science workers, works free for these institutions (fighting for credit).

The current business model as a whole is a legacy institution based on earlier monopoly by a charlatan named Maxwell [2]. He basically lured scientist by shiny hotels+extra packages to build the initial reputation and then monopolize the entire industry for decades. It's interesting how the model works by rip off the taxpayers twice (by publishing and access) while still peer-review process is free (from money, not credit).

You can find a good review of this scheme from below YouTube video[3].

[1] https://openreview.net/group?id=ICLR.cc/2022/Conference

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Maxwell

[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PriwCi6SzLo