3 ms·
Science publications are a business. Most results can’t even be reproduced, are paid by taxpayers yet the researchers or university gets to patent it. This is
by moi2388 3y ago
Science publications are a business. Most results can’t even be reproduced, are paid by taxpayers yet the researchers or university gets to patent it.
This is a joke. Public funding ought to equal public results. Both to the claims, the paper, the raw data and the peer reviews.
Having said that; peer reviewers and disproving older papers should earn more money than making claims that cannot be reproduced.
Also the practice of ranking scientists and universities by citations is moronic. I could in theory write a paper that claims the earth is square. Now a 1,000 friends and colleagues quote me, explaining I don’t make sense, but somehow both I and my university will RISE in ranking?!
- red_admiral 3y agoIt's a common joke in Mathematics that the way to get lots of citations is to publish a paper with a subtle error - then every "someone was wrong on ~the internet~ _a paper_" type will cite you with suggested corrections.
- voakbasda 3y agoNot just math. The technique is called "nerd sniping": https://xkcd.com/356/ https://xkcd.com/356/ Beware. It's a common trick on forums not entirely unlike this one.
- myself248 3y agoCunningham's Law.
- autonomousErwin 3y agoThere was an opportunity of comical irony here...
- FrustratedMonky 3y agoYeah. Everyone claiming peer-review and publishing is broke, are completely discounting this effect. That people like finding things wrong in other papers.
- CoastalCoder 3y agoI'm actually glad that people like doing that, as I imagine it reduces the risk of false beliefs becoming accepted as true. But maybe there are other factors that make it a net negative? (I haven't really followed academia since concluding my studies.)
- huytersd 3y agoThat’s the rational way of doing things. But emotionally humans strive more for the honor and glory that comes from making a big discovery so I’m happy with the status quo.
- MisterPea 3y ago> Public funding ought to equal public results. Both to the claims, the paper, the raw data and the peer reviews. One of my biggest gripes with academia. More and more are universities and those who run it act like private corporations than non-profit research institutions
- ProllyInfamous 3y agoHarvard is an investment fund with a side-business of training future investors (via alumni donations).
- dsabanin 3y agoThe research is publicly funded by US tax payers, but releasing it without any restrictions or delays makes it public for everyone, even for those countries who had nothing to do with funding it and are sworn enemies of the US and it's allies.
- CamperBob2 3y agoOh, no! Anyway
- jzb 3y agoThis is a defense of the current system? That a paywall is what stands between our precious research and our “sworn enemies”? So, other countries and entities can fund weapons, armies, spies, but a paywall is a bridge too far to cross? That’s an extremely weak argument.
- infamouscow 3y agoThere's nothing about the academic publishing system preventing "sworn enemies of the US" from getting access to journals. If you're conducting research on something that the US federal government deems a matter of national security, it means you've received a security clearance. You're not publishing anything in a journal unless you fancy a long prison sentence.
- sleeplessworld 3y agoWho do you mean by "... those countries ..."? If we are talking state level, will a paywall really make any difference? Could it be that enemy spies already have their finger on the pulse for interesting research, unless it is very secret? And indeed the most secret stuff is often the primary target... Or is the target only scientists and students?
- Guvante 3y agoIf everybody has X then someone I dislike will is a terrible argument. It does not cost $1k a year to have access to these publications as an individual, anything our "enemies" would want could be obtained for effectively zero dollars.
- 3y ago
- lupusreal 3y agoDisproving old papers is done by people attempting replication, not by peer reviewers. Peer review doesn't typically entail replication attempts, it's just a sniff test for obvious errors that would embarrass the journal if let through.
- moi2388 3y agoI didn’t claim it was. I merely said both peer reviewers and people disproving results ought to get paid more. Peer reviewers usually don’t even get paid at all, and getting funding for trying to replicate results is often non-existent, meaning at best it gets done by a couple of undergrads
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]