4 ms·

So scientists created this new publishing platform called the www but other scientists with no such expertise pretend it hurts their reputation to use it? That

So scientists created this new publishing platform called the www but other scientists with no such expertise pretend it hurts their reputation to use it? That seems rather comical. Do they perhaps have a constructive argument to offer? If they desire a harsh rigorous review mechanism it doesn't seem very hard or expensive to build. Anon reviewers, top noch reviewers, they can have many tiers. It isn't the journal that has prestige but the track record of its reviewers. Mirror the topics on a discussion platform with separate sections for different skill levels. Heavy contributors earn bragging rights. Mirror the topics on a wiki and have experts approve edits. There is prestige in just approving contributions and having conversations. A chat client is also imaginable where one approves/adds contacts by type of publication. Each can run rare expensive advertising that lives up to unreasonable demands. But no? That would hurt the reputation - just because?

jpeloquin 2y ago
The problem with gold OA is the proliferation of low-quality spam, and the recommended remedy is to both restore exclusivity (raise the barrier to entry) without supporting excessive (monopolistic, exploitative) journal subscription fees. The article's recommendation to build up society journals has a decent chance of accomplishing this. It won't prevent spam from getting published, but the only essential aspect is to keep the spam easily identifiable (e.g., published by MDPI) so it can be safely ignored. The www seems to facilitate the spam business model so I don't think the spam will go away entirely.
- throwaway14356 2y ago
  Assuming you want to get rid of the fees entirely: people will have to look at the spam and divide it into more and less spammy. Others will have to do the same with the less spammy and so on. Eventually there is room for more accomplished moderators Until those with the greatest prestige filter down to a tiny sub set. You assign weights to the experts so that with each level of review the good half raises in rank much more than the previous round. At first you do it by committee but eventually the rating for each scientists can be derived from the importance of their publication(s). I don't think it needs to be free or even cheap. Subscriptions to the archives (and research data) could be more expensive and the money can be divided over the reputation points. Free access can be earned by the sweat of your brow, publish worthy papers and do reviews that closely match other reviewers. Universities should be able to publish enough quality material to get paid. Have the grownups pay for juniors education again. It was a good idea back then it is a good idea now.
whatshisface 2y ago
It is in nobody's individual interest to switch from an established journal to a new one before at least half of the rest have switched, so nobody does it. Scientists are also being squeezed within an inch of their lives by the career advancement / funding system leaving no time for the organization of this kind of change.
- RobotToaster 2y ago
  It's basically the prisoner's dilemma. Everyone knows what would be best if everyone did it, but doing it while others don't has a negative payoff.
  - throwaway14356 2y ago
    Religions also attempt to explain the universe. The problem begins when new theories, new observations and new stories can no longer be added. It must after all support some form of acceptance initially. The edge science is suppose to have is obvious. Let me make a gesture with my finger in the atmosphere and say: on with it already! Forewards! this one is funny https://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com https://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com
rscho 2y ago
You are clearly unfamiliar with biomed research. Journals do have prestige by themselves, by now. And it's not so much reviewers but rather the acceptance rate on cursory read by an (sometimes anonymous) editor that maintains it.

jpeloquin 2y ago

The problem with gold OA is the proliferation of low-quality spam, and the recommended remedy is to both restore exclusivity (raise the barrier to entry) without supporting excessive (monopolistic, exploitative) journal subscription fees. The article's recommendation to build up society journals has a decent chance of accomplishing this. It won't prevent spam from getting published, but the only essential aspect is to keep the spam easily identifiable (e.g., published by MDPI) so it can be safely ignored. The www seems to facilitate the spam business model so I don't think the spam will go away entirely.

throwaway14356 2y ago
Assuming you want to get rid of the fees entirely: people will have to look at the spam and divide it into more and less spammy. Others will have to do the same with the less spammy and so on. Eventually there is room for more accomplished moderators Until those with the greatest prestige filter down to a tiny sub set. You assign weights to the experts so that with each level of review the good half raises in rank much more than the previous round. At first you do it by committee but eventually the rating for each scientists can be derived from the importance of their publication(s). I don't think it needs to be free or even cheap. Subscriptions to the archives (and research data) could be more expensive and the money can be divided over the reputation points. Free access can be earned by the sweat of your brow, publish worthy papers and do reviews that closely match other reviewers. Universities should be able to publish enough quality material to get paid. Have the grownups pay for juniors education again. It was a good idea back then it is a good idea now.

whatshisface 2y ago

It is in nobody's individual interest to switch from an established journal to a new one before at least half of the rest have switched, so nobody does it. Scientists are also being squeezed within an inch of their lives by the career advancement / funding system leaving no time for the organization of this kind of change.

RobotToaster 2y ago
It's basically the prisoner's dilemma. Everyone knows what would be best if everyone did it, but doing it while others don't has a negative payoff.
- throwaway14356 2y ago
  Religions also attempt to explain the universe. The problem begins when new theories, new observations and new stories can no longer be added. It must after all support some form of acceptance initially. The edge science is suppose to have is obvious. Let me make a gesture with my finger in the atmosphere and say: on with it already! Forewards! this one is funny https://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com https://www.journal-of-nuclear-physics.com

rscho 2y ago

You are clearly unfamiliar with biomed research. Journals do have prestige by themselves, by now. And it's not so much reviewers but rather the acceptance rate on cursory read by an (sometimes anonymous) editor that maintains it.