4 ms·
This might not be as crazy as it sounds. One group selects research to fund in the social good. This is the INPUT to the scientific process. The publishers fi
by softwaredoug 6y ago
This might not be as crazy as it sounds.
One group selects research to fund in the social good. This is the INPUT to the scientific process.
The publishers filter the OUTPUT: they select what is noteworthy and (ostensibly) good science produced with those funds.
If I got a pile of cash to pursue an interesting cancer treatment, you’d want some filter on the output to know whether, indeed, I did anything noteworthy with the cash.
- afrojack123 6y agoThis assumes the public is stupid. Citizen scientists and readers can decide what is good and what is not. Think of a Substack or Patron model as opposed to Fake News(NY times, Washington Post, CNN, etc).
- tchalla 6y ago> The publishers filter the OUTPUT: they select what is noteworthy and (ostensibly) good science produced with those funds. You may want to check this assumption. The publishers do not filter the output. It is done for free by the scientific community. Source : I have been a reviewer for many of these publications over the years.
- fermienrico 6y agoThese publishers are just glorified PDF hosting companies? Do they do anything?
- pirocks 6y agoGlorified pdf hosting would probably be an accurate way of describing them. Also sometimes they print the pdfs.