If you know how fucked up scientific publishing is, this honestly does not sound that crazy.
-
If you know how fucked up scientific publishing is, this honestly does not sound that crazy. Something needs to change how it currently works. Top journals charge top coin for publishing studies and scientists work for free to review those publications, then in most cases the studies are not even publicly available. And that's science funded by the government/the tax payer.
-
If you know how fucked up scientific publishing is, this honestly does not sound that crazy. Something needs to change how it currently works. Top journals charge top coin for publishing studies and scientists work for free to review those publications, then in most cases the studies are not even publicly available. And that's science funded by the government/the tax payer.
This is not an incorrect point but rfks motives are more likely delegitimization of major journals to make the hacky bullshit journals he cites not seem so quacky
If this is successful in 5-10 years it will be much less normal to say “at least show me a paper from nature”. Then the confusing landscape of journals that are not well known become even harder to differentiate from the ones he cites
For reference, when he was citing his antivax bullshit at (I believe it was) his confirmation hearing the article he cited came from a journal of extremely dubious quality. The board of directors were all antivaxxers, one of which being the guy who published the article, and the journal was registered out of a residential home. It was basically the academic journal equivalent of a fanzine with obvious and extreme conflicts of interest in its peer review. The paper itself had glaring methodology issues (shocker).
If scientists are forced to leave the most reputable publications it just muddies the waters even more for articles that are of very high quality or importance
The issues you point out are still very relevant and need resolution of course but they can be solved in other ways. Regulation surrounding how government funded research is handled, how government endowment funds for library access to journals are handled, etc could give significant leverage over private publishers without having to start over from scratch. Or you could be more aggressive and force the publishers to be more equitable, but good luck with that in America
-
If you know how fucked up scientific publishing is, this honestly does not sound that crazy. Something needs to change how it currently works. Top journals charge top coin for publishing studies and scientists work for free to review those publications, then in most cases the studies are not even publicly available. And that's science funded by the government/the tax payer.
Yeah I still can't believe that this is how we do things in this stupid country.
-
If you know how fucked up scientific publishing is, this honestly does not sound that crazy. Something needs to change how it currently works. Top journals charge top coin for publishing studies and scientists work for free to review those publications, then in most cases the studies are not even publicly available. And that's science funded by the government/the tax payer.
wrote on last edited by [email protected]"Work for free to review" oversimplifies it. Peer Review is a key part of how Science operates. These smart folks are getting paid by their companies and academic institutions to conduct Science, and a key part of that is making sure that new advances get the proper vetting. So it's all part of their normal job description as a Certified Smartypants. And then there is also a clear conflict of interest if these journals pay reviewers, because that might influence reviewers in how they judge the paper.
This is really an attack on peer review, because the kind of junk science the Right espouses these days can't get past it. Get rid of that, and a lot of their ideas can start to gain more traction, even if they are incorrect and not backed by science. Because they will no longer have independent Scientists as Gatekeepers....
-
This is not an incorrect point but rfks motives are more likely delegitimization of major journals to make the hacky bullshit journals he cites not seem so quacky
If this is successful in 5-10 years it will be much less normal to say “at least show me a paper from nature”. Then the confusing landscape of journals that are not well known become even harder to differentiate from the ones he cites
For reference, when he was citing his antivax bullshit at (I believe it was) his confirmation hearing the article he cited came from a journal of extremely dubious quality. The board of directors were all antivaxxers, one of which being the guy who published the article, and the journal was registered out of a residential home. It was basically the academic journal equivalent of a fanzine with obvious and extreme conflicts of interest in its peer review. The paper itself had glaring methodology issues (shocker).
If scientists are forced to leave the most reputable publications it just muddies the waters even more for articles that are of very high quality or importance
The issues you point out are still very relevant and need resolution of course but they can be solved in other ways. Regulation surrounding how government funded research is handled, how government endowment funds for library access to journals are handled, etc could give significant leverage over private publishers without having to start over from scratch. Or you could be more aggressive and force the publishers to be more equitable, but good luck with that in America
It would also give the quack journals that they are allowed to publish in “authority” to spew more bullshit against actual scientific papers.
-
If you know how fucked up scientific publishing is, this honestly does not sound that crazy. Something needs to change how it currently works. Top journals charge top coin for publishing studies and scientists work for free to review those publications, then in most cases the studies are not even publicly available. And that's science funded by the government/the tax payer.
A broken clock is right twice a day, but they're not broken clocks.
They break the clocks.
Just because they occasionally do something that actually sounds good doesn't mean it will be good. This will not change "publish or perish", nor will this meaningfully push the scientific community away from pay-to-win or closed source knowledge.
Not in the same world where they are gleefully defunding research, threatening universities across the board, and actively encouraging hostility toward the most basic principles of science and healthcare.
The only things this would actually accomplish is to bypass peer review, further close-source the government's knowledge, and assault the legitimacy of research that could otherwise save countless lives.
-
This is not an incorrect point but rfks motives are more likely delegitimization of major journals to make the hacky bullshit journals he cites not seem so quacky
If this is successful in 5-10 years it will be much less normal to say “at least show me a paper from nature”. Then the confusing landscape of journals that are not well known become even harder to differentiate from the ones he cites
For reference, when he was citing his antivax bullshit at (I believe it was) his confirmation hearing the article he cited came from a journal of extremely dubious quality. The board of directors were all antivaxxers, one of which being the guy who published the article, and the journal was registered out of a residential home. It was basically the academic journal equivalent of a fanzine with obvious and extreme conflicts of interest in its peer review. The paper itself had glaring methodology issues (shocker).
If scientists are forced to leave the most reputable publications it just muddies the waters even more for articles that are of very high quality or importance
The issues you point out are still very relevant and need resolution of course but they can be solved in other ways. Regulation surrounding how government funded research is handled, how government endowment funds for library access to journals are handled, etc could give significant leverage over private publishers without having to start over from scratch. Or you could be more aggressive and force the publishers to be more equitable, but good luck with that in America
Not replying to everyone here, but wanted to make clear I obviously don't think that the motives behind this are sane.
Just pointing out that the system does need changing. This is probably not the right way but nothing else is happening to the system either. Even though scientists are complaining, their funding depends on publishing in such journals.
-
It would also give the quack journals that they are allowed to publish in “authority” to spew more bullshit against actual scientific papers.
This is already happening.
-
If you know how fucked up scientific publishing is, this honestly does not sound that crazy. Something needs to change how it currently works. Top journals charge top coin for publishing studies and scientists work for free to review those publications, then in most cases the studies are not even publicly available. And that's science funded by the government/the tax payer.
I've said for decades that coalitions of Universities need to make their own journals that operate transparently and trade on their reputations at low to no cost.
The current and proposed publishing rackets need to go.
-
"Work for free to review" oversimplifies it. Peer Review is a key part of how Science operates. These smart folks are getting paid by their companies and academic institutions to conduct Science, and a key part of that is making sure that new advances get the proper vetting. So it's all part of their normal job description as a Certified Smartypants. And then there is also a clear conflict of interest if these journals pay reviewers, because that might influence reviewers in how they judge the paper.
This is really an attack on peer review, because the kind of junk science the Right espouses these days can't get past it. Get rid of that, and a lot of their ideas can start to gain more traction, even if they are incorrect and not backed by science. Because they will no longer have independent Scientists as Gatekeepers....
And as we've seen recently "peer review" is falling down a lot anyway
-
I've said for decades that coalitions of Universities need to make their own journals that operate transparently and trade on their reputations at low to no cost.
The current and proposed publishing rackets need to go.
Yeah but then they'd have to set up a server to publish the papers, and . . oohhh it's sooo complicated!
Of course, yeah, it is a little complicated but that's why you pay people to do those things. The mechanisms for it and the processes have been solved for decades now.
-
I've said for decades that coalitions of Universities need to make their own journals that operate transparently and trade on their reputations at low to no cost.
The current and proposed publishing rackets need to go.
Not exactly that but some are trying at least this https://www.coalition-s.org/
