Why is all of scientific research locked behind paywalls instead of some open source, scientist-built, democratized system?
Because like most people, the average is just trying to get by with the least amount of effort. Structural change is hard and risky. Especially going against a highly experienced establishment tied to “traditional” or “conservative” values.
Anyone want to build one together? I’ve always been frustrated with the current academic publishing model. Parasitic “publishers” double dipping on authors and readers while outsourcing the bulk of the review work unpaid.
Anyone want to build one together? This issue, of “publishers” not only double dipping to accept and then share papers especially when outsourcing the review work unpaid back to the researchers themselves, has always frustrated me.
Why is all of scientific research locked behind paywalls
Because to advance in your field you need to publish your research in peer reviewed publications and the publishers need to monetise the content to keep publishing.
ArXiv is just a pre—print, and SciHub is a shadow library.
If you want an academic career, have your discoveries recognised, and stay in funded research, you must publish on peer reviewed traditional channels. Like it or not.
Of course you can still do research alone and publish on your website, but hardly anyone would take you seriously.
Yeah that’s why “science” has become such a failure. There’s no actual progress in forcing people to publish worthless research, forcing worthwhile information behind paywalls, etc. This is a major part of how/why science is used to enforce the extreme privilege of a few at the expense of fascism, violence, planetary destruction, etc. for everyone else.
I don’t even know what you are talking about, but I’m afraid that you are not well informed. Even as an undergraduate you get access to publications through your university.
That’s exactly the point. If you want to be a researcher right now you have to play their game. You have to publish papers even if you don’t have anything. So people publish bullshit, use chatGPT, force their name on papers they haven’t contributed and so on.
Meanwhile the science journals get paid by everyone and pay no one.
So people publish bullshit, use chatGPT, force their name on papers they haven’t contributed and so on.
Assuming that you pass the peer review, then nobody will reference your paper in other papers. It will become obvious that your research is not interesting or that you are just slapping your name on papers as a supervisor.
Lol, it shows you don’t know how things really work. New bullshit cites old bullshit, it’s all a game of pretending. You can check the statistics of fraudulent papers and that is just takes into account the most obvious ones.
A good example of this is the Amyloid Hypothesis for dementia. All the papers that “proved” this concept have been retracted, but after 8 years. Good work showed that looking at amyloid load in random brains showed no correlation close to 20 years ago, but amyloidists begat more amyloidists, until finally there was a drug that reduces amyloid by 30%. All it did was cause brain bleeds, deaths and no benefit, but the FDA approved it anyway. MDs will still explain how it really “should” work. It was all a cabal of US scientists who dominated all symposia, only inviting speakers who were in their cabal.
Meanwhile, genetic forms of neurodegeneration are highlighting defects in DNA damage repair. So, 25 years and billions wasted while there still are no treatments.
Of course I don’t know, while you are an accomplished scientist with tons of papers under his belt. All disagreements here ends with one genius saying lol I know better.
Why is all of scientific research locked behind paywalls instead of some open source, scientist-built, democratized system?
Because like most people, the average is just trying to get by with the least amount of effort. Structural change is hard and risky. Especially going against a highly experienced establishment tied to “traditional” or “conservative” values.
Anyone want to build one together? I’ve always been frustrated with the current academic publishing model. Parasitic “publishers” double dipping on authors and readers while outsourcing the bulk of the review work unpaid.
Anyone want to build one together? This issue, of “publishers” not only double dipping to accept and then share papers especially when outsourcing the review work unpaid back to the researchers themselves, has always frustrated me.
Because to advance in your field you need to publish your research in peer reviewed publications and the publishers need to monetise the content to keep publishing.
It sucks, it works.
You should check out the planet sometime.
What are you talking about?
It certainly doesn’t work, that’s why there exists stuff like arXiv and SciHub
ArXiv is just a pre—print, and SciHub is a shadow library.
If you want an academic career, have your discoveries recognised, and stay in funded research, you must publish on peer reviewed traditional channels. Like it or not.
Of course you can still do research alone and publish on your website, but hardly anyone would take you seriously.
Yeah that’s why “science” has become such a failure. There’s no actual progress in forcing people to publish worthless research, forcing worthwhile information behind paywalls, etc. This is a major part of how/why science is used to enforce the extreme privilege of a few at the expense of fascism, violence, planetary destruction, etc. for everyone else.
I don’t even know what you are talking about, but I’m afraid that you are not well informed. Even as an undergraduate you get access to publications through your university.
That’s exactly the point. If you want to be a researcher right now you have to play their game. You have to publish papers even if you don’t have anything. So people publish bullshit, use chatGPT, force their name on papers they haven’t contributed and so on.
Meanwhile the science journals get paid by everyone and pay no one.
Assuming that you pass the peer review, then nobody will reference your paper in other papers. It will become obvious that your research is not interesting or that you are just slapping your name on papers as a supervisor.
So you have no idea what a supervisor does.
I do and I bet you don’t since you draw conclusions based on nothing.
Lol, it shows you don’t know how things really work. New bullshit cites old bullshit, it’s all a game of pretending. You can check the statistics of fraudulent papers and that is just takes into account the most obvious ones.
A good example of this is the Amyloid Hypothesis for dementia. All the papers that “proved” this concept have been retracted, but after 8 years. Good work showed that looking at amyloid load in random brains showed no correlation close to 20 years ago, but amyloidists begat more amyloidists, until finally there was a drug that reduces amyloid by 30%. All it did was cause brain bleeds, deaths and no benefit, but the FDA approved it anyway. MDs will still explain how it really “should” work. It was all a cabal of US scientists who dominated all symposia, only inviting speakers who were in their cabal.
Meanwhile, genetic forms of neurodegeneration are highlighting defects in DNA damage repair. So, 25 years and billions wasted while there still are no treatments.
Of course I don’t know, while you are an accomplished scientist with tons of papers under his belt. All disagreements here ends with one genius saying lol I know better.