As an academic both the article and the ASA get things wrong. Obviously making science available for everyone is good, and the ASA has no argument. But the ar

As an academic both the article and the ASA get things wrong. Obviously making science available for everyone is good, and the ASA has no argument. But the article minimizes the fundamental problems in academia. > 2. Academia is more open than much of business, government, and organized religion, so it’s easier for us to see the problems. That's not even remotely true. Academia is more closed, more obscure, more small network, with fewer sunshine laws, than any business, government or organized religion. It's far harder for us to see the real problems. > 3. So much of the enabling of cheating in academia just seems so pointless. It’s not cool when companies pollute, but, hey, you can see the reason$ they’ll want to do so. But what does the American Sociology Association get out of fighting against open science, what does the University of California get out of tolerating research misconduct, what do the American Statistical Association and American Political Science Association get out of giving rewards for plagiarists? Nothing. That’s what so damn pitiful. Cheating in academia has great rewards! The ASA gets money. UC gets prestige, donors, etc. The fundamental mistake the author makes is that academia is not one thing. There are academics as we've always known then and then there is the administration class. The people who do the work mostly want to get to the truth and get things done. The administration is into face-saving, donations, endowments, insanely expensive buildings, adding another VP of something, yet another layer of paperwork for every action, etc. the truth and what's right isn't aligned at all with the administrative class.