3 ms·

I was very serious. The journals take works others have done (work often paid for with public money) and get unpaid volunteers to peer-review it. Next they req

I was very serious. The journals take works others have done (work often paid for with public money) and get unpaid volunteers to peer-review it. Next they require the authors to sign away their copyright to it. And then they turn right back around and sell it to very same universities where it came from for thousands of dollars a year. And for what? So they can have have profit margins rivaling big tech? (Their major expenses are lawyers and server costs for pdf documents…) And why do researchers publish there? Because they need to in order to keep their jobs, or to get funding. You need those high-impact-factor and prestigious journals. And so you sign away your research. Most 1st world researchers don’t care or don’t know about the costs. But most of the world is not so lucky. Yes you could go around begging the authors for a free copy (but definitely don’t go to scihub or library genesis and download them for free, that would be illegal…). The “space for improvements” starts with burning down the journals and scattering their ashes among the fields to fertilize new science.

EvgeniyZh 3y ago
> burning down the journals and scattering their ashes among the fields to fertilize new science. Oh yeah, destroy working system and then maybe figure it out, works like a charm every time.
- _aavaa_ 3y ago
  Again, we had scientific progress (and problems with it) before the current system. The only currency that matters is if your results can be reproduced, as as far as I'm aware the overwhelming majority of journals make no attempt at reproducing the results before accepting it. Hell, it doesn't seem like they even make an attempt at make string there's enough information provided to even attempt to reproduce it. When I come across a paper that does any sort of modelling, I simply assume I won't be able to reproduce it if the code isn't included. They all seem to leave out important information.
  - EvgeniyZh 3y ago
    > Again, we had scientific progress (and problems with it) before the current system. Again, the scale and accessibility of science is different now and then. We had commute before steam engine, it doesn't mean we can get rid of all engine-based transportation now without consequences. > The only currency that matters is if your results can be reproduced This is extreme reductionism. LHC results cannot be replicated unless you have multi billion particle accelerator in your backyard. JWST cannot be replicated. Many other large scale experiments are nearly impossible to replicate. In fact, these are often considered "important" ones. And this not necessarily due to price, but rather combination of price, unique expertise and willing to spend effort. You know who will be able to tell you if the experiment description makes sense and has chances to be replicated if you ask them? Peers. Peer review at will never worked (and there were attempts) and never will because nobody likes to do peer review. I'm yet to see any proposal for peer review without editorial invitations which has at least theoretical chances to succeed. > I won't be able to reproduce it if the code isn't included. So you do mean "reproduction", not "replication". This is very low threshold and definitely not "only currency that matters". If I send you the code that alters the results somewhere deep inside, you'll be able to reproduce them.
    - _aavaa_ 3y ago
      > Many other large scale experiments are nearly impossible to replicate. Thankfully, the LHC is not what all of science looks like. There is a great deal of science that can be reproduced without needing billions of dollars. > If I send you the code that alters the results somewhere deep inside, you'll be able to reproduce them. But the current status quo for most papers is that you don't even have that. If you public put out code that manipulates data in this way then it can be scrutinized. The alternative is to attempt to replicate the results, and waste months of time trying to guess what the authors did (since they won't tell you), and in the end never being able to reproduce it, not knowing if it was because key information was missing or because it was falsified. That is, if you can spend the time attempt to reproduce the results, rather than publishing your own novel and revolution results. And if you'll find a journal who'll be interested in publishing your failure to replicate.
      - 3y ago

EvgeniyZh 3y ago

> burning down the journals and scattering their ashes among the fields to fertilize new science. Oh yeah, destroy working system and then maybe figure it out, works like a charm every time.

_aavaa_ 3y ago
Again, we had scientific progress (and problems with it) before the current system. The only currency that matters is if your results can be reproduced, as as far as I'm aware the overwhelming majority of journals make no attempt at reproducing the results before accepting it. Hell, it doesn't seem like they even make an attempt at make string there's enough information provided to even attempt to reproduce it. When I come across a paper that does any sort of modelling, I simply assume I won't be able to reproduce it if the code isn't included. They all seem to leave out important information.
- EvgeniyZh 3y ago
  > Again, we had scientific progress (and problems with it) before the current system. Again, the scale and accessibility of science is different now and then. We had commute before steam engine, it doesn't mean we can get rid of all engine-based transportation now without consequences. > The only currency that matters is if your results can be reproduced This is extreme reductionism. LHC results cannot be replicated unless you have multi billion particle accelerator in your backyard. JWST cannot be replicated. Many other large scale experiments are nearly impossible to replicate. In fact, these are often considered "important" ones. And this not necessarily due to price, but rather combination of price, unique expertise and willing to spend effort. You know who will be able to tell you if the experiment description makes sense and has chances to be replicated if you ask them? Peers. Peer review at will never worked (and there were attempts) and never will because nobody likes to do peer review. I'm yet to see any proposal for peer review without editorial invitations which has at least theoretical chances to succeed. > I won't be able to reproduce it if the code isn't included. So you do mean "reproduction", not "replication". This is very low threshold and definitely not "only currency that matters". If I send you the code that alters the results somewhere deep inside, you'll be able to reproduce them.
  - _aavaa_ 3y ago
    > Many other large scale experiments are nearly impossible to replicate. Thankfully, the LHC is not what all of science looks like. There is a great deal of science that can be reproduced without needing billions of dollars. > If I send you the code that alters the results somewhere deep inside, you'll be able to reproduce them. But the current status quo for most papers is that you don't even have that. If you public put out code that manipulates data in this way then it can be scrutinized. The alternative is to attempt to replicate the results, and waste months of time trying to guess what the authors did (since they won't tell you), and in the end never being able to reproduce it, not knowing if it was because key information was missing or because it was falsified. That is, if you can spend the time attempt to reproduce the results, rather than publishing your own novel and revolution results. And if you'll find a journal who'll be interested in publishing your failure to replicate.
    - 3y ago