Strange7 comments on The Shabbos goy - Less Wrong

35 Post author: PhilGoetz 26 March 2010 04:16PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (85)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 26 March 2010 04:56:49PM *  4 points [-]

People wouldn't have a problem with an academic journal that they believed charged a reasonable fee. But consider a typical journal published by Springer-Verlag or Mary Thomas Liebert:

  • Subscription fee: $100 per issue, $1200/year
  • Cost per article for non-subscribers: $30
  • Fee paid by the author of each article: about $3000
  • Advertising fee: I'd guess at least $5,000/page, based on the fact that each full-color page in your article usually adds $1000-$2000 to its cost
  • Salary paid to reviewers: $0
  • Cost of electronic publishing: about $100 per issue, divided among all subscribers

They have a problem with having a small number of subscribers. But many hobbyist groups manage to publish quality journals to equally-small audiences at a cost of under $10/issue.

The fact that people aren't jumping in to compete with lower-costs journals makes me suspect that it isn't that easy. But it's still not at all obvious why academic journals cost so much.

(The big ones, Science and Nature, are relatively inexpensive.))

Comment author: Strange7 26 March 2010 05:38:22PM 13 points [-]

But it's still not at all obvious why academic journals cost so much.

Sure it is. Subscriptions are mostly paid for by institutions, rather than individuals. Any given article effectively has a monopoly on it's own content, so once a university has subscribed and the profs are used to getting free access to that content, it's politically difficult for the university to un-subscribe. Then the journal incrementally increases the prices. Soon, the university's accounting department is on the losing end of a frog-boil.

Comment author: thomblake 26 March 2010 06:19:58PM 3 points [-]

on the losing end of a frog-boil.

I'm stealing this expression.

Comment author: Strange7 26 March 2010 07:19:40PM -1 points [-]

The more widely-accepted term for nondestructive appropriation of creative content is 'piracy.'

Comment author: wnoise 26 March 2010 07:54:01PM 0 points [-]

It's not one I accept. I think it's a very bad analogy, and refuse to use the word with that meaning.

Comment author: thomblake 26 March 2010 07:22:48PM 0 points [-]

How about, I'll use it fairly with attribution where possible

Comment author: RobinZ 26 March 2010 08:14:55PM 0 points [-]

Vocabulary is not creative content.

Comment author: wnoise 26 March 2010 09:01:53PM 0 points [-]

Vocabulary absolutely can be creative content -- boiling something down to a few words is a difficult art.

I would agree with it not being covered by various intellectual property laws.

Comment author: RobinZ 26 March 2010 09:52:12PM 0 points [-]

We have no disagreement here.

Comment author: PhilGoetz 27 March 2010 12:48:38AM 0 points [-]

I just want to call someone a frog-boiler.