Somewhat related, I remember watching Japanese animes where the the world is divided to imaginary nations that resembles US (big Western super power), China (big Eastern super power) and EU (group of countries combined to form a substantial power).
In these animes, nations form alliances but turn against each other the moment their interests are no longer aligned.
I am starting to see how this is also true in real world.
I mean, the open-access movement is widely hailed as an important progressive step in improving the academic world, regardless of nationality. Hopefully it's just a matter of time before the US's own agencies join in similar demands, assuming that there isn't already such a plan.
No, there isn't in this specific instance.
However, reading news for the past year did give me a overall feeling that ties between China and EU are getting closer while ties between China and US, as well as EU and US are getting more strained.
Hmm...isn't this the other way around, China aligning with "European funders"? (EU is coordinating, individual organisations within countries are actually doing).
well, it does reduce the chinese cost of acquiring foreign IP, and so the decision seems pretty internally consistent
Are there really anime stories where a Barbara Streisand character roars at telepathic sourcerers who just stay silent and motionless for the rest of the episode?
You don't need "big firewalls" and government-sponsored censorship to control information. There are softer ways  to press for a narrative that's advantageous to you and ways that are way less visible .
Note the claim how supposedly none of the "interventions" happen in the English language, just like the NSA supposedly never spied on US citizens. That statement was rooted in the Smith-Mund Act, which has since then been reformed  and it's been an extremely noticeable shift in the English language online discourses.
Just like language itself is a filter, anybody who only speaks English is dependent on trusting what English sources translate and tell them. While other-language sources often paint a very different, usually way less polarized, picture.
I avoided it somehow in high school, as I did most books, and ended up reading it in my early 20s. Now over the past 10 to 15 years I've seen it starting to come true in scary ways, albeit not exactly as was predicted (which is to be expected of course).
It's also just a good book! It builds to a tremendous climax, and the ending is just as good and unexpected as any good story today. Highly recommended.
If you like audiobooks, the one narrated by Frank Muller is great. Audible has it for $10 but it's of course hobbled with their DRM. There is a copy of the Frank Muller reading floating around on torrents, but a better solution is to just buy DRM free. There is a DRM free version narrated by Simon Prebble that I haven't listened to, but it has great reviews (all audiobooks from Downpour are DRM free btw): https://www.downpour.com/1984?sp=12482
P.S. If you care about your freedom, when possible buy DRM free from places like Downpour. Paired with an app like Listen Audiobooks, I find the UX to be even better than Audible (it's a great app: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.acmeandroi...)
Actually I've read The Prince and I got carried away by the ideas in the book. Maybe I shouldn't read 1984 after all? Anyway, I'm just interested in politics, but not planning to enter politics.
These scientific journals hail from a time before the web was widespread and universally accessible.
In the present day, it is technologically feasible for every scientist to self-publish on their own blog (we'd probably want some new tooling for tracking and counting citations distributed across the web, but that's just details for some programmers to work out).
Given the premise, I wonder the following. If we were to simply disband the existing publishers today, rather than trying to regulate them, what system would emerge to fill their place? Would it be similar to the existing system? Or would it be something more free-and-webby as described in the premise? Or something else entirely?
Fundamentally what is needed is a process that produces peer-reviewed, immutable, discrete pieces of globally published work. Self-published blogs don't really achieve that well.
Institutional archives do.
I don't know that you're wrong, but:
Right now, I really want an article in Nature or some other prestigious journal, in order to advance my career as a scientist. If those prestigious publications were suddenly gone, there might be other publications that would spring up to fill the vaccuum, but the new ones would have no track record and no prestige. So wouldn't everyone just as soon either self-publish or else favor non-exploitative, open-access journals?
What if we did away with all car companies? How about all TV media companies? What if all physicians were no longer physicians tomorrow?
From that perspective, I am assuming that the top (in hierarchy, not importance) groups from the then-incumbents will be the fastest to raise new companies, which will still be able to attract talent with the prestige that the old company used to have (think about how startups founded by ex-FAANG work). E.g. Nature executives and leaders develop N2, FOX builds Wolf, Tesla builds...Tesla, all of which start off with more credibility and popularity than offerings without this benefit. I do not think that the exact same situation would arise though. There would still be easier entry into these markets than before, at least at first.
In other words: for many disciplines, the potential replacements providing peer review, archival and distribution are already there. The main thing a replacement system will have to find out is how to determine who to give grants, tenure, etc.
(Disclaimer: I'm working on a project that hopes to achieve that.)
It's not currently that interesting to the average HN reader though. The idea is to allow researchers to give each other recognition explicitly, ideally replacing the recognition of "being published in journal x". Since researchers already have a reputation in their academic community, we figured that we could leverage that as a counterweight to the indirect reputation that journals currently have.
We do so by integrating with preprint servers and publishers, providing a widget that allows researchers to endorse the research they're reading. The first integrations are set to launch at the start of 2019, so until then there's not much to play with.
That said, the PageRank-like system you might be looking for could just be the h-index? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-index
However, for academics, it wouldn't be entirely clear what to do. For example, if you choose to only disband paywalled journals, they will likely simple submit their works to open access journals, and over time some of those will emerge as the new "good ones".
Which is an interesting parallel, because that is sort of what Plan S tries to do. Except that it doesn't really have the power to "break up" paywalled journals, but only to deny them the ability to publish work they fund. As more and more funders join (like these Chinese funders appear likely to do), the closer this will get to "breaking up".
If you were able to disband all journals, but not preprint servers, then researchers would probably start publishing their work there, new servers would emerge for disciplines that don't have one yet, and some new system of determining "excellent" work will probably emerge. (Disclaimer: I'm working on one such system.)
If also preprint servers were disbanded... I don't know - nobody would be able to publish any more? Would you allow new publishers to be created?
Yes, that was my intent. New publishers could emerge, and with no new restrictions on their behavior. Basically the main change is that the slate will have been wiped clean in terms of prestige.
1. would new publishers emerge?
2. how, if at all, would they be different from what we have now.
These articles keep referring to the ability to "immediately read." Sounds great but I wanted to make sure there's nothing up the term's sleeve that I'm missing.
1) Free to view all approved papers (possibly run by a non-profit and funded by grants around the world)
2) Establish reputations for scientists (giving scientists access to future grants)
3) Peer review handled autonomously (submitted papers are automatically distributed autonomously by the system to other scientists in the related field with a high enough reputation)
4) Easy searching for articles (articles have semantic structure, are categorized by author, title, subject, citations, etc.)
5) Removal of "scientific silos" (all articles published to the same site, categories define content rather than publishing brand)
2) This, I think, is the crux. We should move away from using journal names as a proxy for quality (which, luckily, is an explicit goal of Plan S), and find an alternative. Altmetrics is an example of a company that attempts to establish one such alternative, I'm part of a project that attempts another.
3) This would be nice, but I don't think that's be necessary for making them open access? Given how conservative much of academia appears to be, I'm not sure if this would actually make a transition more likely.
4) Metadata for research is often already really good, also for Open Access research. Finding the actual article itself usually is the main challenge, but the only reason for that is because those articles can be behind a paywall. With them freely available, discovery is practically solved.
5) This too should be fixed if all research is published under an open license such as CC-By, which would allow everybody to mirror articles. (Like this project does: https://oalibrary.org/)
That is, will this mean that more new research will be freely available, but that old research will still be behind paywalls? If so, it would be interesting if researchers could push journals to not only allow open access for their new work, but also require that previous papers also be made available.
(Also, often subscriptions by university libraries to include the provision that they maintain access to already-published work, so together with inter-library loan, it's not that much of a problem.)
The systems provided by publishers are, um, not. They're at the usual quality of bad corporate software, but more strikingly their anti-piracy changes have only served to make the gap worse. There are anti-crawler features which freeze access to entire universities when a hidden link is followed. There are view-in-app and download-disabled restrictions, often associated with no-searchable-text. (Which are especially idiotic, of course, because you can't actually restrict access to static content once you serve it. Using screenshots and OCR is irritating, but not hard to apply.) And in the worst cases, there's "available on request" via a library or some other human-interaction delivery mechanism. Which actually would limit bulk piracy, but only by crippling access altogether.
Every time I've tried to get a background in a topic or write about it, there's been a step where I check a dozen papers and discard 80% of them as being irrelevant for my purpose (or simply bad). Assuming that's common, it's hard to imagine how silos with custom access mechanisms can endure against a single, searchable repository at any price.
It's funny how absolutely useless Google scholar is for finding papers. You can specifically put in authors and the exact title in quotes and it will still be on like the third page.
Point being, if articles can be freely distributed, that paves the way for discovery services to provide better interfaces to the research.
The main goal of Plan S is to transform the publishing industry, whereas the main fear of concerned academics will be that they will be unable to publish in the journals that are (currently) important for their career perspectives. That fear is mostly rooted in a) fear that Plan S will not achieve its goals, i.e. that the "big name" journals will not go open access and that they will be blocked from publishing there, and b) that non-European funders will be less likely to give them tenure/grants due to them not having published in said journals.
A major foreign funder helps alleviate both concerns, and will put additional pressure on the US to follow suit - which would all but put the concerns to rest. Except for the traditional publishers, of course.