出版与作家生涯2017theguardian.com
科学出版这门生意对科学有害吗？
Is the business of scientific publishing bad for science?
导读
这篇《卫报》文章讨论商业学术出版是否损害科学：少数出版商垄断期刊、抬高订阅价格，而写作与同行评审几乎都由学者无偿完成。对写作者的价值不在选题本身，而在于几条评论示范了如何用时间线、具体案例、利益披露和"指出缺席者"来把一篇批评写得有说服力。
可以直接用的写作要点
- 01
用"过去 vs 现在"的时间线做对照（学会期刊时代 vs 商业化之后），能让抽象的制度批评变得具体可感。
- 02
点名具体机构、人物和产品（Elsevier、Gowers、Discrete Analysis），比笼统说"出版商"更能建立可信度。
- 03
主动披露自己的利益相关（"Full disclosure：我是这家公司的创始人"），反而增强而非削弱论证的说服力。
- 04
指出讨论中"缺席的那一块"（例如从不发表的负面结果），往往是让文章胜出的关键补充。
HN 评论精选
商业出版从"可忍受的贵"滑向全面失控，学者还被行政指标逼着往里投稿。
过去有学会自办的期刊，加上 Elsevier–Pergamon 的双头垄断。学会期刊大体体面，订阅也负担得起；Elsevier/Pergamon 又贵又差，但真需要时可以不用它——图书馆不订，你就去要一份抽印本。三十年前不算好，但还管得过来。此后发生了好几件事：学会期刊大多被卖给了商业出版商，价格陡涨；Elsevier 一如既往地不靠谱，而且更贵；各种开放获取期刊冒出来，质量比 Elsevier 还差。最后，连教学型院校的学者也被迫发表，因为管理者不懂行，加上普遍经费短缺。学术出版已经完全失控。图书馆员以为 2001 年就已经够糟了，看看现在。
HarryHirsch查看英文原文
In the old days there were the journals from the scientific societies and the Elsevier-Pergamon duopoly. Society journals were respectable, generally speaking, and subscriptions were affordable. Elsevier/Pergamon was expensive, pretty bad, and something you could do without if you had to. If the library wouldn't subscribe you'd ask for a reprint. Things weren't great 30 years ago but manageable. Several things have happened since. The society journals have mostly been sold to commercial publishers, and prices have gone up steeply, Elsevier is as sketchy as always but even more expensive, and the various open-access journals have popped up, with a quality even worse than Elsevier. Finally, even academics at teaching institutions are forced to publish thanks to clueless administrators and a general shortage of funds. Scientific publishing is fully out of control. Librarians thought they had it bad in 2001, but look at it now!
出版商的核心功能已被网络技术取代，其高收费缺乏正当性。
完全同意。这还用讨论吗？科学期刊公司榨取巨额租金，创造的附加价值是零——我说的"零"就是字面意义的零，不是人们有时那种"并非真的零"的用法。他们要么不付钱、要么只付极少的钱给做同行评审的研究者，而那是唯一有价值的部分。除此之外他们到底做了什么？发表？这件事在互联网上成本几乎为零。这种生意居然还存在，真让人恶心。
darawk查看英文原文
Yes, definitely. Is this even a discussion? Scientific journal companies extract enormous rents and add literally zero value. I'm not using 'literally' in the not-actually-literally sense that people sometimes use it. I mean literally zero value. They either don't pay, or barely pay, the peer researchers who review the material (the only valuable part). Aside from that, they do what, exactly? Publish it? The thing that costs effectively zero dollars to do on the internet now? It's disgusting that this business still exists.
学界自建低成本出版平台是可行的替代路径（作者亦明示了自己的商业利益）。
我很高兴这类文章在 HN 上出现得越来越频繁。我相信学术出版的很多问题，可以通过给学界提供负担得起的期刊管理与出版工具来解决——毕竟稿子是他们自己写的，评审也是他们自己做的。利益披露：我是一家叫 Scholastica 的公司创始人，这是一个同行评审与出版平台，法律、数学等各领域数百种期刊在用。菲尔兹奖得主、剑桥数学教授 Timothy Gowers 爵士大约一年前在这个平台上创办了一份高质量的 arXiv overlay 期刊 Discrete Analysis，我认为这足以说明：学界可以不依赖现有企业出版商的格局，自己写、自己评、自己出。
robertwalsh0查看英文原文
I'm excited about the increasing frequency in which articles on this topic are showing up on HN. I believe that many of the problems in academic publishing can be remedied by giving the scholarly community affordable tools to manage and publish journals. After all, they are already writing and peer-reviewing the material themselves. Full disclosure: I'm a founder of a company called Scholastica (https://www.scholasticahq.com), a peer-review and publishing platform used by hundreds of journals across a variety of disciplines ranging from law to mathematics. Sir Timothy Gowers, the Fields Medal winner and Cambridge Mathematics prof, launched a high-quality ArXiv overlay journal on the platform about a year ago (http://discreteanalysisjournal.com/) which I think lends credence to the idea that the scholarly community can write, review, and publish work without relying on the current corporate publisher status quo.
不发表负面结果造成系统性偏差，后来者会重复已经失败的路。
我们还没谈到另一个扭曲：负面结果，比如失败实验的结果，从来不被发表，可它们极有价值。也许科学家是想让同行再去打那些已经输掉的仗吧。
aj7查看英文原文
We haven't even addressed the distortion that negative results, such as the results of failed experiments, are never published, yet are extremely valuable. Perhaps scientists wish to condemn their peers to fighting battles already lost.
同类还值得读
写书：值得吗？
Writing a book: is it worth it?
Martin Kleppmann（《设计数据密集型应用》作者）复盘写书到底值不值：金钱回报低、耗时极长，但带来了可见度、信任和职业机会。
出版与作家生涯2020 · 642 分 · 287 评4 条写作要点编辑精选写书并不是个好主意
Writing books is not really a good idea
这篇文章讨论靠写书谋生的现实难度，评论区从版税数学、收入预期和写作目标三个角度补充了作者视角。
出版与作家生涯2021 · 577 分 · 609 评4 条写作要点编辑精选如何自助出版一本书：实用资源清单
How to self-publish a book: A handy list of resources
这是一份关于「如何自助出版一本书」的资源清单帖，涵盖从编辑、排版到 ISBN、销售渠道的实操工具与花费。
出版与作家生涯2018 · 558 分 · 88 评4 条写作要点编辑精选我自助出版一本Ruby on Rails书，赚了7万美元
How I Made $70k Self-Publishing a Book about Ruby on Rails
这是一篇 Ruby 开发者自述：他把一套 Rails 性能课程（书＋视频＋答疑）自出版，一年毛收入约 7 万美元，并总结了选题、定价、营销等经验。
出版与作家生涯2017 · 539 分 · 175 评4 条写作要点编辑精选石黑一雄警告年轻作家因“恐惧”而自我审查
Sir Kazuo Ishiguro warns of young authors self-censoring out of 'fear'
石黑一雄提醒年轻作者因“恐惧”而自我审查，即这条帖子讨论的核心。
出版与作家生涯2021 · 396 分 · 641 评5 条写作要点编辑精选