Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
AI Science

AI Researchers Revolt Against a New Paywalled Nature Journal (oregonstate.edu) 49

More than 2,000 researchers, including several employees of Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Netflix and other companies, have signed an open letter to revolt against Nature Machine Intelligence, a proposed new paywalled (closed-access) journal from Nature Publishing Group. The researchers said they won't "submit to, review, or edit" anything for the new publication. Nature Publishing Group has responded to the protest saying it is "providing a service -- for those who are interested -- by connecting different fields, providing an outlet for interdisciplinary work and guiding a rigorous review process." The open letter, posted on Oregon State University's site, adds: We see no role for closed access or author-fee publication in the future of machine learning research and believe the adoption of this new journal as an outlet of record for the machine learning community would be a retrograde step. In contrast, we would welcome new zero-cost open access journals and conferences in artificial intelligence and machine learning.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AI Researchers Revolt Against a New Paywalled Nature Journal

Comments Filter:
  • by 110010001000 ( 697113 ) on Monday April 30, 2018 @04:28PM (#56532347) Homepage Journal
    Someone should develop a system for decentralized publishing of scientific documents. Like a interconnected network of some kind.
    • Also, a GPG web of trust for peer review. Reviewers can get their public key signed by other experts to build up their reputation as an expert on X. Then they sign their reviews of papers, and you can verify whether they are an expert in the field they are reviewing.

  • About time (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Nice to see that (some) outdated business models have finally reached the dead-on-arrival phase.

  • There is no Zero cost, it costs someone, somewhere. What they actually mean was that someone else should pay.
    • I think what they actually mean is that the costs of hosting a website and a couple of pdfs should be provided for free either by public or private funds, just like providing, editing and reviewing the scientific content is done for free by the people who signed the open letter. I can't believe a fee of $30 per online article copy is in any sensible way proportional to the actual costs the publisher has to provide that article.
    • There is no Zero cost, it costs someone, somewhere.

      It may not be zero cost, but the cost of running a VPS hosting some static PDFs is negligible. My VPS costs $10 per month.

      The hard part is the peer reviews, for which, under the current system, the journals DO NOT PAY.

      Before you give more reasons why Open Access is impossible, you should explain why the physics community is already doing it [arxiv.org] and it is working well.

      If research is funded in full or in part with public funds, then the data and results should be available to the public.

  • by zippo01 ( 688802 ) on Monday April 30, 2018 @04:57PM (#56532585)
    Why not just have AI submit to, review, or edit? Problem solved. Then have some more AI pay to read the articles. Closed loops are the best kind.
  • by bmimatt ( 1021295 ) on Monday April 30, 2018 @05:23PM (#56532829)
    I was hoping AI is revolting against paywalls. That could be fun to watch/read about.
  • Don't use it. Yes, perhaps your institution gives lots of tenure points for Nature publications, but you should be willing to stand up for what you believe in regardless of personal cost, right?

    Why not create and manage your own open journal covering machine intelligence? (obligatory: with blackjack, and hookers)

  • by nitehawk214 ( 222219 ) on Monday April 30, 2018 @06:14PM (#56533157)

    Anytime "AI" and "Revolt" are in an articles headline, you know it will generate clicks.

  • This really highlights just how out of touch journals are with reality, they couldn't have picked a field more against paywalls with a huge track record of free and open research papers than ML.

Information is the inverse of entropy.

Working...