https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8F9gzQz1Pms
So I've been considering building a distributed, open-access, peer reviewed journal. Anyone interested in helping out?
John BS's Science Journal...
I can already smell the prestige.
Let's set up 20 of them and require that researchers cite the other 19 each time they publish. That way our journals will be cited more often.
@Pat Well the name was still undecided 😛
But seriously, I think a distributed storage based open-access journal may help alleviate a lot of the issues with current journal pricing schemes which honestly need to be addressed for better science to continue in the future.
Agree. Papers need to accessed based on the integrity of the research, not the size of the wallets of those sponsoring that research.
@Pat And not only that, the amount of medical research behind paywalls is literally delaying life saving treatment to people who need it. The current journal pricing scheme is predatory and frankly, anyone who disagrees needs to have their eyes checked.
Those holding the reins in the academy use the word "predatory" as code for anything that might undermine their privilege, or the privilege of their corporate sponsors.
@Pat Not sure if you're levying that charge at me, but I hold no reins and have little privilege at this point lol, and academic journals have long been extorting academics to advance their careers. Just look up Elsevier and you'll find loads of information on their insane pricing for both authors and readers. My university alone pays at least $15,000,000 per year just for subscriptions to their journals. It's clearly nonsense.
I think information needs to be as free as possible so everyone can make the best decisions they can. The higher the barrier to entry for accessing knowledge, the faster a society's progress and ability to overcome challenges stagnates due to repeated attempts on futile projects.
This is also why I think negative results of well designed experiments also deserve to be published, which I would love to have as its own section in my journal.
Thoughts?
No, you were using the term against them. They use the term against journals that threaten their oligopoly. When they use the term against open journals they say those journals are “predatory” against researchers, but what they really mean is that their power is threatened.
Ultimately funding has to come from somewhere, so the wealthy are going to be in control either way, at least for research that requires a lot of resources. Fortunately, publishing is no longer one of those tasks that require a ton of resources. Also, researchers shouldn’t be tainted in any way by their choice of journals to publish in.
>”This is also why I think negative results of well designed experiments also deserve to be published,”
This is absolutely right. We put way too much emphasis on proving the hypothesis correct rather than just resolving the question itself. I think if the Large Hadron Collider had failed to find the Higgs boson and proved that theory incorrect, that those involved should have gotten just as much praise and recognition, including Anderson, Brout, Englert, and Higgs. There should be a Nobel Prize for those who work tirelessly on a creditable theory, yet ultimately prove their own theory incorrect.
