3 ms·

I don't get it. Are you just trying to get money from people who aren't qualified to critique your work? Publish in PLOS One if you really want to get somethi

by lvs 12y ago

I don't get it. Are you just trying to get money from people who aren't qualified to critique your work? Publish in PLOS One if you really want to get something out.

lotsofmangos 12y ago
Isn't nearly all science funded by getting money from people unqualified to critique the work?
- lvs 12y ago
  No. NSF, NIH, DARPA, NASA, and private foundations all have review systems in place to evaluate proposals. You can quibble with how they're evaluated or who precisely is writing the review, but they're all generally evaluated by qualified study sections.
  - lotsofmangos 12y ago
    They don't have the money though, they are just in charge of how it is distributed. The money for science comes mostly from people unqualified to professionally review the work. This is undeniable, otherwise stuff like CERN would not exist, as professional particle physicists are not personally that rich. edit - I view this as an interesting experiment and I am glad that there are people testing out new methods like this. I am not immediately taken with the way it is presented and I do have reservations about the model, however I am deliberately withholding judgment for now and will watch this for a while and see if anything comes of it. I don't think there is anything necessarily untoward about raising money directly from a research source, though it does raise interesting questions about policing charlatanry and keeping funding going for important research that may not be meme of the week, should it take off. And ultimately private individuals have always been able to help fund research, so in some senses it doesn't change that much, it just makes that aspect more blatant.
untilHellbanned 12y ago
No journal besides Onarbor gives you money to publish. In fact, most journals charge you thousands of dollars to publish (PLOS One charges $1,200). Onarbor is publishing and funding in one platform, there is no comparison with any journal. Also, Onarbor enables infinite reviews. PLOS One and other journals have 2-3 reviewers, whom in most cases are your cronies who will accept your work no matter what. Traditional evaluation is broken and virtually no academics respect it. Onarbor easily 10X's the status quo of vetting work.
- lvs 12y ago
  Onarbor is publishing and funding in one platform Great pitch, but it's still just an attempt to end-run the funding process. There should indeed be systematic solutions to the current problems, but this attempt is just a recipe for funding snake oil. Traditional evaluation is broken and virtually no academics respect it. There's plenty to criticize about peer review and about the big journals, but to say "virtually no academics respect it" is just factually untrue.
  - untilHellbanned 12y ago
    "this attempt is just a recipe for funding snake oil." Everything is snake oil and an end-run. Have you ever read Nature? Have you ever submitted a grant to the NIH? ""virtually no academics respect it" is just factually untrue." Virtually no reasonable academics respect it. Read this, an interview of Sydney Brenner, no doubt one of the most important biologist ever. http://kingsreview.co.uk/magazine/blog/2014/02/24/how-academia-and-publishing-are-destroying-scientific-innovation-a-conversation-with-sydney-brenner/ http://kingsreview.co.uk/magazine/blog/2014/02/24/how-academ...
    - lvs 12y ago
      Everything is snake oil and an end-run. It sounds to me like you're conceding the argument. I don't disagree with your sentiments about the quality of review, but manufacturing an outlet to completely sidestep peer review (the key word being "peer") does nothing to improve the situation. In fact, it runs directly counter to your stated ambitions.

by lvs 12y ago

I don't get it. Are you just trying to get money from people who aren't qualified to critique your work? Publish in PLOS One if you really want to get something out.

lotsofmangos 12y ago

Isn't nearly all science funded by getting money from people unqualified to critique the work?

lvs 12y ago
No. NSF, NIH, DARPA, NASA, and private foundations all have review systems in place to evaluate proposals. You can quibble with how they're evaluated or who precisely is writing the review, but they're all generally evaluated by qualified study sections.
- lotsofmangos 12y ago
  They don't have the money though, they are just in charge of how it is distributed. The money for science comes mostly from people unqualified to professionally review the work. This is undeniable, otherwise stuff like CERN would not exist, as professional particle physicists are not personally that rich. edit - I view this as an interesting experiment and I am glad that there are people testing out new methods like this. I am not immediately taken with the way it is presented and I do have reservations about the model, however I am deliberately withholding judgment for now and will watch this for a while and see if anything comes of it. I don't think there is anything necessarily untoward about raising money directly from a research source, though it does raise interesting questions about policing charlatanry and keeping funding going for important research that may not be meme of the week, should it take off. And ultimately private individuals have always been able to help fund research, so in some senses it doesn't change that much, it just makes that aspect more blatant.

untilHellbanned 12y ago

No journal besides Onarbor gives you money to publish. In fact, most journals charge you thousands of dollars to publish (PLOS One charges $1,200). Onarbor is publishing and funding in one platform, there is no comparison with any journal. Also, Onarbor enables infinite reviews. PLOS One and other journals have 2-3 reviewers, whom in most cases are your cronies who will accept your work no matter what. Traditional evaluation is broken and virtually no academics respect it. Onarbor easily 10X's the status quo of vetting work.

lvs 12y ago
Onarbor is publishing and funding in one platform Great pitch, but it's still just an attempt to end-run the funding process. There should indeed be systematic solutions to the current problems, but this attempt is just a recipe for funding snake oil. Traditional evaluation is broken and virtually no academics respect it. There's plenty to criticize about peer review and about the big journals, but to say "virtually no academics respect it" is just factually untrue.
- untilHellbanned 12y ago
  "this attempt is just a recipe for funding snake oil." Everything is snake oil and an end-run. Have you ever read Nature? Have you ever submitted a grant to the NIH? ""virtually no academics respect it" is just factually untrue." Virtually no reasonable academics respect it. Read this, an interview of Sydney Brenner, no doubt one of the most important biologist ever. http://kingsreview.co.uk/magazine/blog/2014/02/24/how-academia-and-publishing-are-destroying-scientific-innovation-a-conversation-with-sydney-brenner/ http://kingsreview.co.uk/magazine/blog/2014/02/24/how-academ...
  - lvs 12y ago
    Everything is snake oil and an end-run. It sounds to me like you're conceding the argument. I don't disagree with your sentiments about the quality of review, but manufacturing an outlet to completely sidestep peer review (the key word being "peer") does nothing to improve the situation. In fact, it runs directly counter to your stated ambitions.