4 ms·

I don't think it needs to be disrupted. While the philosophy behind reforming is noble, my own discussions with researchers have convinced me that this doesn't

by akamaka 17y ago

I don't think it needs to be disrupted. While the philosophy behind reforming is noble, my own discussions with researchers have convinced me that this doesn't matter to them. They know there are flaws, but they also believe that good research will still float to the top, and so they spend their energies on what is important, which is doing good research.

fauigerzigerk 17y ago
My discussions with researchers and my own reading of scientific work have convinced me that the main problem is how much researchers have to publish in order to be ranked highly. It leads to a huge number of rehashed, low quality papers. Some of the issues on the publishing side could be solved simply by reducing the amount of rubish that hits the system. And the second problem I see is not a technology issue either. It's that, at least in europe, academic research is funded by the public. In spite of that, the work of scientists is given away to publishers who hold the entire system hostage. Publishers are in effect running an elaborate scheme to blackmail the tax payer into paying twice for the same work without adding any value themselves. The peer reviewers are funded by the tax payer as well. If universities did what other employers do, which is to take ownership of what their employees produce and manage it properly, access to scientific work could be much improved.
Tichy 17y ago
Once they are in the system, maybe they have a good time. But it seems likely to me that if the general public were to be let in, more good science could result from it - because more people would have a chance to learn and contribute. That said, from university days I remember that the newest papers were often passed on between interested parties directly, not by publishing them.
- akamaka 17y ago
  What you say sounds true and good, but I'll ultimately listen to what the people around me have to say, rather than theorize about what's good for them.

by akamaka 17y ago

fauigerzigerk 17y ago

My discussions with researchers and my own reading of scientific work have convinced me that the main problem is how much researchers have to publish in order to be ranked highly. It leads to a huge number of rehashed, low quality papers. Some of the issues on the publishing side could be solved simply by reducing the amount of rubish that hits the system. And the second problem I see is not a technology issue either. It's that, at least in europe, academic research is funded by the public. In spite of that, the work of scientists is given away to publishers who hold the entire system hostage. Publishers are in effect running an elaborate scheme to blackmail the tax payer into paying twice for the same work without adding any value themselves. The peer reviewers are funded by the tax payer as well. If universities did what other employers do, which is to take ownership of what their employees produce and manage it properly, access to scientific work could be much improved.

Tichy 17y ago

Once they are in the system, maybe they have a good time. But it seems likely to me that if the general public were to be let in, more good science could result from it - because more people would have a chance to learn and contribute. That said, from university days I remember that the newest papers were often passed on between interested parties directly, not by publishing them.

akamaka 17y ago
What you say sounds true and good, but I'll ultimately listen to what the people around me have to say, rather than theorize about what's good for them.