dmitriz

> Then when I submit they'll "proofread" and "format" my paper, failing to spot existing errors, introducing their own, and outputting an ugly mess, maybe with two columns to make it really unreadable.

We have been recording their (dis)services here, with everyone warmly welcome to add more:

https://gitlab.com/publishing-reform/discussion/issues/4

And under no circumstances you should tell anyone to edit the URL by inserting their illegal domain name after the article's, as that would directly, and importantly - illegally, download the article.

> What do you do when you have a branch working on Android and another branch working on iOS and you have deliveries on both platforms?

Stop it and focus on one single web app instead that anyone can run. Unless your app is going to be in the top 10 that people can't miss downloading.

> like Google, the ultimate force for Good in technology

Hahaha...

https://www.reddit.com/r/degoogle/

https://twitter.com/hashtag/degoogle

Fruits are also sources of fructose, especially fruit juices. Veggies juices are supposed to be healthy indeed.

But eating raw... what numbers of fruit/veggies you need to cover the same amount of water?

What would be the use? These are just rough guidelines.

> bodies are actually pretty good at letting us know when we need water.

My body certainly isn't.

> Most people don't even understand how to listen to their own bodies anymore, and doctors are more concerned with prescriptions that treating underlying issues.

Well said! It is the sad truth that doctors can be coerced by private companies into personal monetary benefits from selling their products.

It is a variadic function of unlimited number of variables. :)

> unless i'm having trouble getting it down my throat.

If you have to get that far, are you certain to do the best job for your health?

But many people prefer routine and automation. Routine helps avoid wasting time and mental efforts by staying alerted to how exactly you feel at all times, not to mention the ease to misread your feeling.

I can only speak for myself, and find it really challenging to reliably evaluate my hungriness/thirstiness. If I can get hungry just by looking at food, or if I end up eating way too much because I've thought I was hungry (I wasn't!), then how on Earth can I possibly rely on such elusive indicators?

To later become island front?

Just downloaded the MacOS build (44Mb) from https://download.servo.org/ but can't even start it: "no mountable file system"! What is going on?

Overview of distribution of costs by 5 main publishers -- Elsevier share is larger than all other 4 large publishers combined:

https://oa2020.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/B14-12-Lidiia-Bor...

> but I am sure we will find solutions to these problems in time.

Solutions have been found -- overlay journals:

https://gitlab.com/publishing-reform/discussion/issues/94

Quote from https://svpow.com/2016/05/22/elseviers-increasing-control-ov...

"it’s simply unrealistic to imagine that Elsevier, in controlling Mendeley and SSRN, will do anything other than what is best for Elsevier."

The figure of 40% appears in quite a number of sources. Do they all make things up? Does the "operating margin" somehow refute it? Does "operating" here mean 22% after subtracting all additional (possibly luxurious or generously allocated) expenses?

No one really wants to criticise anyone and every work should be fairly rewarded. It is the unfair part that people are objecting to.

> I feel like you're being deceptive here

Giving precise quote with full source link for everyone interested is deceptive? How so?

> RELX, the parent company of Elsevier, hasn't been involved in this for over a decade

Yes, the article is dated 2005. It was clearly a major issue for the journal's reputation at the time, that went through the trouble to write it. The guardian article is from 2008, so 3 years after. Does 2008 being 10 years ago erase that part of the history?

This very subject was brought in this tweet: https://twitter.com/paul_abrahams/status/1062402097172414464

> If anyone doubts the value provided by academic publishers, they should read this story of the inner workings of @TheLancet, one of @ElsevierConnect 's leading journals http://bit.ly/relx-lancet, the link celebrating 200 years of history of the journal!

Either Elsevier takes credit for 200 years of The Lancet, including the last 20 years, or we need to erase all the history up until 10 years ago? :) Wasn't that tweet perhaps deceptive?

> There are perfectly good reasons to criticize Elsevier - you may feel like they should have a way for patients and caregivers to access research about their condition, for example - so there's really no need to be disingenuous.

It was a quote, no added critics on my part. If you note "suggestions for publishers" under the following link, that can hardly be intepreted as criticising :) https://gitlab.com/publishing-reform/discussion/issues/100#s...

If publishers play hardball, no researcher will ever work for them as authors, referees or editors. Or they come down to more reasonable prices and perhaps reduce their 40% profits to ones in line with other industries?

Some longer term solution? https://blog.scholasticahq.com/post/journals-declaring-indep...

Added value:

"The Lancet finds itself connected to... global arms trade: a trade that inflicts physical and social harm in the poorest and least stable regions. Since 2003, The Lancet's owner and publisher, Reed Elsevier, has organised some of the world's largest arms" https://t.co/rIbch7S6dy

Good time to change publisher...

https://blog.scholasticahq.com/post/journals-declaring-indep...

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=22162

https://declaring-independence.org/

How to make journal bundles ("big deals") fair and promote quality? https://gitlab.com/publishing-reform/discussion/issues/100

Certainly less in the country where Elsevier has such fantastic reputation :)

> publishing the same article in two journals is severely frowned upon

Posting copy to arXiv or similar is a norm and not regarded as publishing in another journal.

In some areas like theoretical physics people read mostly arXiv. It does help to shift content control away from publishers.

> "require Elsevier/Springer/Wiley/... to include the reference to the free version"

And they refuse as long as they can. Because they hold the copyrights and universities have no leverage.

The only way to break it is to help their faculty make their journals academic owned. Unfortunately, no official help to record that far... https://twitter.com/Dmitri145/status/1074571804113399808

And here are some responses from editors: https://gitlab.com/publishing-reform/discussion/blob/master/...

The worst part in most of these "Big Deals" is lock-in taxpayers money without any flexibility to save by cancelling titles of lower value. This is what prevents these funds from being spent on the new innovative lower cost and higher value initiatives. https://medium.com/@dmitri145/inefficient-publishing-industr...

And this is how we can change it: https://gitlab.com/publishing-reform/discussion/issues/100

> And yet simultaneously, Elsevier has made one of the most aggressive pushes into OA publishing. They are likely the largest OA publisher by article volume today. Yes, they have the most to lose with a big shift to OA, but they also have the most to gain. And OA publishing has proven that it can be very very profitable, particularly for Elsevier.

They made the push into their version of OA, the hybrid OA, where they can charge exorbitant rate on top of the subscription, that no author would pay, whereas many journals such as the members of the Free Journals Network https://freejournals.org/ do not charge at all. And yes, it is obviously very profitable, so why would they not push it?

> But even if you hate Elsevier, they are indeed in a position to have a lot of the data needed.

Their date will reflect their own interest, where conflict of interest is obvious.

> They compile a database of all journals and citations (as do a few others, like for-profit Clarivate and non-profit Crossref).

Except that their database excludes many independent journals.