3 ms·
I think we're arguing with extremes. Open doesn't mean anyone can publish anything and be taken equally seriously and paid doesn't mean greedy for-profit capita
by ksk 10y ago
I think we're arguing with extremes. Open doesn't mean anyone can publish anything and be taken equally seriously and paid doesn't mean greedy for-profit capitalists who are just in it for the money.
I'm sure you'd agree that there is value to curation. Who pays for that, and how, is the question.
- carreau 10y agoSure of course there is value to curation. There is another problem these days with curation in that only "positive" and "new" result get publish. Which is sad, but is beyond the current scope. Though the current curation to price ratio these days is dramatic. It would be great that movement like this one send a signal to publishers that in the 21st century we are waiting from them more than what they are currently doing. I'm all for publisher like Nature to change and show what _can_ be done. First acknowledging this (like this article) is a great step. And some people in these journals are doing an extraordinary job internally[1]. Just hoping this could shake things and wake up some people in management. [1] is one example http://www.nature.com/news/interactive-notebooks-sharing-the-code-1.16261 http://www.nature.com/news/interactive-notebooks-sharing-the...