CERN to host a new phase of Open Research Europe

dranudin

It'd be great if this could one day be a real alternative to Elsevier. Today, professors and postdocs are doing the peer-review for Elsevier, for free. They can do that because they get a paycheck from the government (through university and grants). Then, the governments pay for Elsevier access through university libraries, ontop of that. It'd be much more efficient, if everybody could just publish and subscribe for free on a publicly funded platform.

kleiba

> In the five years since its launch, the platform has seen steady growth and uptake across the research community, with more than 1,200 articles published. That actually doesn't seem like a lot (240 articles per year), but I suppose they're still in the process of gaining traction.

croemer

This should have been in the article: Diamond Open Access (or Platinum OA) is a scholarly publishing model where journals and platforms are free for both readers and authors, with no Article Processing Charges (APCs).

roflmaostc

Good initiative! The problem is: publication is based on reputation. Reputation takes time and effort from the entire community. I feel like modern infrastructure (Google Scholar, AI research, LinkedIn, etc) helped to decrease the importance of high-impact journals such as Nature, etc. Researchers don't rely on highly curated printed journals in their physical mailbox to get informed what's happening. You can just use tools to scrape content much faster. But still: It can be career decisive if a reseachers lands a publication in a for-profit journal such as Nature. The CS community has a much nicer publishing pipeline where most top journals/proceedings are attached to non-profit conferences and the fee is 0 (beside a conference fee). I wish more fields would work like this: you publish with a conference proceeding and talk on the conference about your paper. Researchers are themselves responsible for typesetting, advertising, etc. This and removing for-profit stakeholders can reduce the costs a lot.

ktokarev

1. looks like duplication. why not arxiv? could lead to multiple submission pipelines 2. as I understand researchers still pay to publish, no? 3. initiative could lead to centralization of publishing power(biased?, politics?, bureaucrats) 4. the problem is not just in access to papers (what about connection to business and real applications) 5. the article is published by CERN and is promotion (vague on details, buzzword-heavy)

lmc

Aside: I really like the graphic on this and the linked homepage. As a European working in a university on EU funded projects, I'm not sure how I've not heard of this before :/.

jruohonen

It is a good initiative. However, it still likely remains biased and discriminatory even in Europe due to: "When the new ORE platform is launched later this year, authorship eligibility will be expanded to include researchers affiliated with institutions in the countries that participate in the consortium."