出版与作家生涯2013nature.com
开放获取：科学出版的真实成本
Open access: The true cost of science publishing
导读
这篇《Nature》报道讨论开放获取科学出版的真实成本：订阅费、论文处理费与出版商“增值”之间的张力，并追问钱到底花在了哪里。对写作者来说，它值得读的不是出版政策本身，而是如何把一场利益争议拆成成本、激励和具体案例来论证。
可以直接用的写作要点
- 01
写争议时先算清“谁付钱、付多少、买到什么”，比空喊公平或贪婪更有说服力。
- 02
先复述对方的“价值主张”，再追问可验证的证据，能让反驳显得克制而有力。
- 03
用具体协议、机构或时间线做例子（如SCOAP3），替代方案才不流于口号。
- 04
把复杂系统拆成不同功能（传播、认证、编辑、存档），避免写成单一坏人叙事。
HN 评论精选
批评出版商因贪婪和付费墙失去合法性，主张大学自建档案、互联网分发。
出版商搬起石头砸自己的脚。几十年前人们就注意到订阅费上涨得惊人；这些贪婪公司可以找借口，但“期刊危机”早于互联网。没有图书馆该因付订阅费而破产。如果它们没那么贪婪、付费墙没那么烦人（即使图书馆有订阅，读者仍会撞上付费墙），辩护会容易得多。现在应把出版商踢出链条：大学把钱花在托管档案上，分发完全走互联网，也许用 BitTorrent 传大档案；如果出版商除了编辑还能提供什么（许多期刊编辑是志愿者），就拿出来。
betterunix查看英文原文
Publishers shot themselves in the foot. The unbelievable rate at which they have increased subscription fees was first noted decades ago -- these greedy companies can try to make excuses, but the "serials crisis" predates the Internet. No library should go broke trying to pay journal subscription fees. If these companies had been less greedy and less annoying with their paywalls (seriously, even when your library has a "Spring subscription," you still get hit by paywalls) they would have a much easier time defending themselves. At this point, though, I think it is fair to say that publishers should be cut out of the loop entirely -- universities should spend their money hosting archives instead of paying subscription fees, and distribution should be done entirely over the Internet (perhaps using BitTorrent to distribute large archives). If publishers have something to bring to the table other than editing (which is done by volunteers in many journals, so what claim to publishers even have on that?), let them bring it.
指出商业出版商真正提供的只是期刊品牌和声誉认证，而非阅读传播。
文章说出版商坚称这种观点误解了他们为论文和研究界增加的价值。那好，请说吧：（一片沉默）商业出版商只提供一样东西：期刊名字。我想发在 Journal fur die reine und angewandte Mathematik、Inventiones mathematicae 等数学家都听过的期刊上，享受自我被吹捧的温暖，终身教职委员会也看这个。但没人真去读期刊；要读论文，有 arXiv 和个人主页。
impendia查看英文原文
> But publishers of subscription journals insist that such views are misguided — born of a failure to appreciate the value they add to the papers they publish, and to the research community as a whole. Okay, let's hear it: (crickets) Commercial publishers offer one and only one thing: the journals' names. I want to publish in Journal fur die reine und angewandte Mathematik and Inventiones mathematicae and lots of other journals with names every mathematician has heard of (and some of which are even in English!) I want the warm glow of having my ego thus flattered, and tenure committees are looking for the same thing too. But nobody will actually go and read the journal. Why bother? If you want to actually read the paper, that's what the arXiv and my personal webpage are for.
介绍 SCOAP3 作为不改变出版商收入却扩大公共收益的可行折中模型。
我有点惊讶文章没提一个近期开放获取转向：SCOAP3 联盟从明年起让绝大多数粒子物理论文开放获取。简版是：一大批图书馆和资助机构与许多出版商达成协议——出版商将所有高能物理论文开放获取，图书馆继续按订阅付费。出版商收入不变，全世界受益。这远不能解决出版业所有问题，但讨论时值得考虑。
Steuard查看英文原文
I was a little surprised not to see one recent shift toward open access mentioned in the article: the SCOAP3 consortium's deal to make the vast majority of particle physics articles open access starting next year. The links below give details, but the short version is that a very large group of libraries and funding agencies have struck a deal with many publishers: the publishers will release all high energy physics articles as open access, and the libraries will keep paying as if they were still subscribed. Thus, the publishers' revenue doesn't change, but the whole world benefits. This doesn't address all of the issues surrounding the publishing industry (not by a longshot), but I think it's a model worth considering when having these discussions. http://scoap3.org/ http://www.nature.com/news/open-access-deal-for-particle-physics-1.11468
把出版关系比作寄生关系，并提出用撤稿率与成本做可检验追问。
哇，真悲哀。读起来像寄生关系而非共生关系。随着数据增多，有没有人研究撤稿率和成本的关系？出版成本低时，作者会更敢下断言、更保守，还是无关？有趣的是，你可以对科学出版做科学，很递归。
ChuckMcM查看英文原文
Wow, that is so sad. It reads like a parasitic relationship not a symbiotic one. As we get more data is there anyone looking a retraction rates vs cost? (does someone get bolder in their claims if the cost to publish is less, or do they get more conservative, or neither? [1]) [1] Interesting that you can do science on the publishing of science, nicely recursive.
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