3 ms·
Speaking as a published scientist, I never thought open access was supposed to "put an end to the era of impact-chasing, false-positives, and unpublished truths
by wmf 2y ago
Speaking as a published scientist, I never thought open access was supposed to "put an end to the era of impact-chasing, false-positives, and unpublished truths." The point of open access is to stop paywalling science by parasitic publishers and it accomplishes that. I also didn't predict that a flood of pay-to-publish journals would lower their standards, but I only pay attention to the top conferences anyway.
- DataDive 2y agoI never thought "open access" means that an author would need to pay $10K to be published in Nature ... that is a lot more parasitic than having a library pay for subscription fees.
- MichaelRo 2y ago@wmv has the correct answer. The original argument is utopian (can never happen in a free society) and basically proposes going back to an era of very few scientists, like I dunno, when most people were illiterate peasants and the sea of retardness was dotted here and there with an Euclid or a Fibonacci. Which sounds good in theory if all you had were Einsteins and Newtons and Kelvins but in practice at least some of the available places would be eliminated by nepotism, and most of the approved scientists while genuine in their effort, would still produce mediocre results. Science results, like LLM training, depends on scale. So I would argue rather, let anyone who wants to do science, do it. The cashier lady and plumber guy are unlikely to wanna do research but out of those who do, eventually something's gonna come out. Only it's not clear straight from the start out of whom.