recentpopularlog in


« earlier   
Transparency is superior to trust | chorasimilarity
Publishing, scientific publishing I mean, is simply irrelevant at this point. The strong part of Open Science, the new, original idea it brings forth is validation.

Sci-Hub acted as the great leveler, as concerns scientific publication. No interested reader cares, at this point, if an article is hostage behind a paywall or if the author of the article paid money for nothing to a Gold OA publisher.

Scientific publishing is finished. You have to be realistic about this thing.


Transparency is superior to trust—as long as some relevant person(s) actually exploit(s) the transparency. Look at how long that ssl flaw hung about in Debian, for example:
That was all open code, utterly vital to the security of hordes of crucial servers run by the world's top-most geeks, and therefore, every internet user. But the problem sat there for two years, apparently.
That's an extreme example that did get fixed. Transparency is necessary yes, but unless it's actually backed by readers/critics/reviewers/coders/experts actually looking through the windowpane afforded by it, its value is only rhetorical.
It does mean that the guards can guard the guards and we can watch the guards guarding the guards though. Or maybe McGregor-Maywether.
sciencepublishing  peerreview  openaccess  scihub  science  transparency  dccomment 
13 hours ago by juliusbeezer
Who's downloading pirated papers? Everyone | Science | AAAS
Even for journals to which the university has access, Sci-Hub is becoming the go-to resource, says Gil Forsyth, another GWU engineering Ph.D. student. “If I do a search on Google Scholar and there’s no immediate PDF link, I have to click through to ‘Check Access through GWU’ and then it’s hit or miss,” he says. “If I put [the paper’s title or DOI] into Sci-Hub, it will just work.” He says that Elsevier publishes the journals that he has had the most trouble accessing.
scihub  sciencepublishing  scholarly  openaccess 
3 days ago by juliusbeezer
Open Access & Scholarly Communication: Defining Success - The Scholarly Kitchen
At the broadest level, universities, academics, and libraries too often conflate several rather different objectives for transforming scholarly communications. In some cases, the objective is to maximize public access to the university’s research outputs. In other cases, it is to bend the cost curve for the university’s licensed e-resources — or escape this paradigm altogether. Because these two purposes are both widely shared, it is understandable that they become to some degree conflated in the pursuit of “open access.” But, they are in fact discrete goals that merit different (not necessarily mutually incompatible) strategic directions.
openaccess  policy  politique  objectifs  communicationscientifique 
3 days ago by marlened
Use of preprints in BBSRC-funded research - BBSRC
We encourage all researchers funded by BBSRC to share their pre-peer review manuscripts via established preprint servers, through dedicated repositories or a preprint service... The use of preprints is also consistent with BBSRC’s commitment to ensure that Research Committee members, Assessment Panel members and external reviewers consider the content of research papers rather than rely on venue of formal publication as a performance or quality measure.
openaccess  bibliometrics 
3 days ago by kfraser

Copy this bookmark:

to read