3 ms·
Oh, they have. See e.g. https://coko.foundation https://coko.foundation and https://pkp.sfu.ca/ojs https://pkp.sfu.ca/ojs. The problem is not creating the soft
by Vinnl 8y ago
Oh, they have. See e.g. https://coko.foundation https://coko.foundation and https://pkp.sfu.ca/ojs https://pkp.sfu.ca/ojs.
The problem is not creating the software. The problem is getting academics, and the people funding them, to recognise alternative publishing outlets as valid, as long as the research they publish is valid.
(Disclosure: I'm working on something addressing that.)
- nekopa 8y agoCan you please share more about what it is that you are working on?
- Vinnl 8y agoThe link's in my profile, but in a nutshell: it's taking the stamps of approval peer reviewers currently give, and removing the journal as its intermediary. So when researchers read an article that is not published in the traditional outlets (e.g. on a preprint server like arXiv), and they find that that article is up to scientific standards, they can publicly endorse that article right there to inform other potential readers and funders of that. It's still early days and we're still testing the concept, but I think there's potential. I've got a newsletter that I haven't sent a mail to for a while, but if you're interested I'll eventually send an update there when there's more to share: https://tinyletter.com/Flockademic https://tinyletter.com/Flockademic