Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by msmash on from the no-thank-you dept.

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.

23 of 49 comments (clear)

  1. Decentralization by 110010001000 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Someone should develop a system for decentralized publishing of scientific documents. Like a interconnected network of some kind.

    1. Re:Decentralization by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 1

      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.

    2. Re:Decentralization by 110010001000 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Good idea. I am an expert on everything so if you need any papers signed let me know...

    3. Re:Decentralization by WorBlux · · Score: 1

      Need more like a blockchain with proof of stake, Researchers previously published in the journal get to use thier influence to pick editors and final publishing decisions.

    4. Re:Decentralization by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      The new TubeWebs will be using qubit deepchain microserves.node.js, and microcasted by community-managed IOT drones.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
  2. About time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Nice to see that (some) outdated business models have finally reached the dead-on-arrival phase.

    1. Re:About time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Except the people wielding those budgets measured in trillions don't read Nature. They read the Bible, and they don't do much of that.

  3. Zero Cost ??? by sit1963nz · · Score: 1

    There is no Zero cost, it costs someone, somewhere. What they actually mean was that someone else should pay.

    1. Re:Zero Cost ??? by mugurel · · Score: 1

      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.

    2. Re:Zero Cost ??? by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

      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 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.

    3. Re: Zero Cost ??? by xvan · · Score: 2

      Sad to crumble your fairy land, but on "old model" the author pays for the reviewing and editing process, the reviewers are not paid for the reviewing, and on a lot of cases, no edition is done by the editors.
      What you're paying for is the Journal reputation, some times because you're interested on it, but on most cases because you need it to survive the publish or perish madness that rules academia.

    4. Re:Zero Cost ??? by tonique · · Score: 1

      Cost per article is usually USD 30 or more.

      I checked now, and Nature seems to only offer subscription, which is $199 for Nature itself. American Chemical Society offer 48 hours for $40. Elsevier don't give price without signing in. Science says I can "Purchase Access to this Article for 1 day for US$30.00."

  4. Um, AI can do that by zippo01 · · Score: 2

    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.

  5. Re:Anceint news. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    If you RTFA, (I know, I know, this is Slashdot.) you'll see that this open letter was published in 2001. I know that Slashdot is well-known for featuring old news, but isn't 17 years late a bit of a record?

    You misread the article. The statement quotes a 2001 decision as history supporting this action, not that this statement was drafted in 2001.

  6. Re:Anceint news. by voislav98 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, if you actually RTFA, you'll see that they just quote the statement by the editorial board of Machine Learning Journal which in 2001 quit to for free Journal of Machine Learning Research. Nature Machine Learning is supposed to launch in January 2019 and this is what this new petition is all about. So, no, slashdot is not 17 years too late.

  7. Look Again (was Re:Anceint news.) by cybersquid · · Score: 1

    Take another look: the open letter is referencing a different letter from 2001.
    Also, you might want to turn your spelling checker back on; it's "Ancient", not "Anceint".

    1. Re:Look Again (was Re:Anceint news.) by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      his spell checker is evolving, and taking the language with it

    2. Re:Look Again (was Re:Anceint news.) by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Actually, perhaps he meant an ceint. (i.e. a girdle). :0

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  8. misread the title by bmimatt · · Score: 3, Funny

    I was hoping AI is revolting against paywalls. That could be fun to watch/read about.

  9. Don't like it? by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    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)

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  10. Concern by nitehawk214 · · Score: 2

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

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
  11. This Really Highlights How Out of Touch Journals.. by tomxor · · Score: 1

    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.

  12. AI researchers are revolting by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 1

    There, I said it.