出版与作家生涯2013nature.com
数学家想让出版商退出出版业
Mathematicians aim to take publishers out of publishing
导读
这篇 Nature 报道介绍数学家尝试绕过商业出版商，自行组织同行评审与出版。评论指出，类似的开放出版模式其实早已存在，并讨论了它们为何仍处于边缘，以及如何让评审过程更透明。对写作者来说，这是一个观察“谁来做编辑、评审与分发”以及透明度如何影响写作生态的案例。
可以直接用的写作要点
- 01
如果写作、排版、评审大多由作者无偿完成，读者或机构却还要付高价订阅，这种出版模式的合理性就值得质疑；写作者应关注自己作品的传播链条。
- 02
开放出版能否成功，不只取决于成本低，还取决于资深学者是否愿意把声誉押在新平台上。
- 03
把评审意见公开并让同行评分，能提高评审质量与问责；写作者也可以用类似机制主动获取反馈。
- 04
公开数据和过程能让结论被独立验证，写作者应保留可核查的材料与来源。
HN 评论精选
类似的无商业出版商出版模式早已存在，报道的“突破性”被夸大。
这似乎相当过时。MSP 等机构似乎已经证明，“研究人员可以以极低成本自行组织同行评审和出版，无需商业出版商介入”。我理解这篇报道谈的是稍有不同的东西（基本上是在收集 arXiv 链接，而不是“出版期刊”），但我也不认为它像 Nature 说的那样具有突破性。
stephencanon查看英文原文
Seems rather behind the times. MSP (http://msp.org/about/) and others seem to have already shown that "researchers can organize the peer review and publication of their work at minimal cost, without involving commercial publishers". I understand that this link is talking about something slightly different (basically collecting links to Arxiv instead of "publishing a journal"), but I also don't think this is as ground-breaking as Nature makes it out to be.
开放出版难以壮大，关键阻力是资深学者按声誉选择成熟商业期刊。
科学界已经有许多开放或免费的出版物。基本逻辑是：如果大部分工作（写作、排版、评审和筛选）本来就由研究人员免费完成，那为什么这些研究人员或其机构还要为访问这些论文的特权付费？这类努力仍然边缘化，因为据我观察，决定哪些成果发表在哪里的终身教授，往往倾向于选择那些据称拥有更好名声、影响力、声誉和名气的成熟商业刊物。
ekurutepe查看英文原文
There has been many open/free publications in the scientific community. The basic idea is that if most of the work (writing, formatting, reviewing and selecting) is done by researchers for free anyway, why should the same researchers (or their institutions) pay for the privilege of accessing these papers. Such efforts remain marginal because in my experience the tenured professor who decides which work to publish where tends to select well established commercial outlets which supposedly have a better name/impact/reputation/fame and all that goes with it.
公开评审、透明编辑晋升和公开数据，可以提升同行评审的可靠性。
Jelte Wicherts 在开放获取期刊《Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience》上提出一组建议，旨在让科学出版中的同行评审更可靠：（1）对同行评审本身进行同行评审：评审意见在线公开并由同行评分，确保评审者问责，提高评审的学术质量；（2）透明的编辑层级：写出许多受好评评审意见的评审者可以晋升到更高编辑职位；（3）在线公开数据：确保已发表论文中的推断性结论可以被独立验证。
tokenadult查看英文原文
From Jelte Wicherts writing in Frontiers of Computational Neuroscience (an open-access journal) comes a set of general suggestions Jelte M. Wicherts, Rogier A. Kievit, Marjan Bakker and Denny Borsboom. Letting the daylight in: reviewing the reviewers and other ways to maximize transparency in science. Front. Comput. Neurosci., 03 April 2012 doi: 10.3389/fncom.2012.00020 http://www.frontiersin.org/Computational_Neuroscience/10.3389/fncom.2012.00020/full on how to make the peer-review process in scientific publishing more reliable. Wicherts does a lot of research on this issue to try to reduce the number of dubious publications in his main discipline, the psychology of human intelligence. "With the emergence of online publishing, opportunities to maximize transparency of scientific research have grown considerably. However, these possibilities are still only marginally used. We argue for the implementation of (1) peer-reviewed peer review, (2) transparent editorial hierarchies, and (3) online data publication. First, peer-reviewed peer review entails a community-wide review system in which reviews are published online and rated by peers. This ensures accountability of reviewers, thereby increasing academic quality of reviews. Second, reviewers who write many highly regarded reviews may move to higher editorial positions. Third, online publication of data ensures the possibility of independent verification of inferential claims in published papers. This counters statistical errors and overly positive reporting of statistical results. We illustrate the benefits of these strategies by discussing an example in which the classical publication system has gone awry, namely controversial IQ research. We argue that this case would have likely been avoided using more transparent publication practices. We argue that the proposed system leads to better reviews, meritocratic editorial hierarchies, and a higher degree of replicability of statistical analyses."
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