3 ms·
It's interesting that this sort of thing is happening just as more and more research is piling up showing that the old peer review publishing model is less effe
by otakucode 9y ago
It's interesting that this sort of thing is happening just as more and more research is piling up showing that the old peer review publishing model is less effective in every possible way than open publishing on the Internet. Errors get caught faster without journals involved. Corrections are published faster without journals involved. Bad science doesn't stick around as long without journals involved. They're just not a thing we need any more. And this is where we will find out how they actually feel about the notion that the thing which provides the better value should win in the market.
- prepend 9y agoCan you get grant funding without them?
- otakucode 9y agoI don't know enough about grant funding to hazard a real guess. That is an interesting issue, though. I presume that grant committees are not typically staffed by people well-versed in the subject area? Would they not be capable of recognizing a global acceptance of an applicants prior work without a fallible journal citation? I know that in many fields the amount of other work which cites a given publication is a very important factor, perhaps that would play a role? What position would it put journals in if they were reduced to providing vetting for grant committees? If instead of being arbiters of scientific validity, which they are poorer at than open publishing, they simply become some sort of thing similar to ratings agencies that provide parents with an unreliable best-effort guide to content acceptability without needing to actually learn about the thing in detail?
- prepend 9y agoFor the US at least, grant committees are almost always staffed by people with subject area expertise. For NIH, there are two levels of SME- one non gov and one gov.