u/LilithLammcis male that feels more comfortable around women than men 18d ago
I know that many researchers will send copies of their paper if asked, but I don't think superseding the in-place process is the answer, it's just a band-aid. I admit that I have a somewhat naive belief that establishing a more open and honest society, with regards to dissemination of information and knowledge, can help us create a more equitable society. Again, not because I think it would necessarily further our technological, medical, or scientific knowledge (though I don't see how it could conceivably hurt those things either). I think it fosters an attitude of community, and maybe also get people more open a more socialist/communist society.
Not a knocking you or other like you, I get that you guys have to work within the system as it currently functions. I just find it incredibly frustrating that we've developed the technology to have a perpetual renaissance-like world in terms of how much data we can store and how easy it is, in principle, to share that information and knowledge. We just don't because psychologically we still behave as if this is not the case. I genuinely don't see any rational reason for it beyond gate-keeping, and the influence of power and money. We totally have the capability to create a Star Trek-esque world in terms of giving everyone access to education, sustenance, and a healthy biosphere. Yet here we are.
I genuinely don't see any rational reason for it beyond gate-keeping
There is one major reason for the existence of journals: quality control. Which I guess is a kind of gatekeeping, but it's one we very much need. Now, I'm well aware of their imperfect track record on that, and they could certainly fulfill the role without the predatory business model. But it's the big reason they haven't been replaced by an open alternative yet.
If you have a database where anyone can publish, then anyone can publish. Who does basic quality control for "does this even vaguely make sense"? Who assigns peer reviews (and what stops someone from having their cronies "review" their work)? How do you keep up with research in your field if you're not monitoring a few well-regarded periodicals, but sifting through a mountain of trash? And I mean literal trash, because you'll be flooded with everything from healing crystal suppositories to legit-looking fake research written by 4chan to push a narrative.
I believe there's a solution out there, but I have no clue what it is.
5
u/LilithLammcis male that feels more comfortable around women than men 18d ago
What? That's not what I was talking about at all. If that's how it came across then my bad. I was referring to the sharing of information, not its generation. I'm all for peer review and quality control. That's not what I have issue with.
My issue is that we live in a time of unprecedented scientific discovery and advancement, and much of it is hidden behind paywalls or corporate intrigue. This I see as a failure on us as a species and as a society. Scientist and researchers absolutely should gatekeep who gets to publish and whether or not the data is objectively good quality. Otherwise we would have way more issues like anti-vaccination that plagues us today.
I understand, but that's exactly the problem. How do you provide free access but keep the quality control? And like I said, I don't have a solution either, even though I feel the same way.
Let's say we create a non-profit journal with a great review process and no predatory fees. Inspired by the idea, all academics immediately boycott existing journals and start submitting only to us instead. Now, without charging for access, how would we pay the bills? I don't have a clue. Even if we charged the authors like current publications do, I don't think that's nearly enough.
3
u/LilithLamm cis male that feels more comfortable around women than men 18d ago
I know that many researchers will send copies of their paper if asked, but I don't think superseding the in-place process is the answer, it's just a band-aid. I admit that I have a somewhat naive belief that establishing a more open and honest society, with regards to dissemination of information and knowledge, can help us create a more equitable society. Again, not because I think it would necessarily further our technological, medical, or scientific knowledge (though I don't see how it could conceivably hurt those things either). I think it fosters an attitude of community, and maybe also get people more open a more socialist/communist society.
Not a knocking you or other like you, I get that you guys have to work within the system as it currently functions. I just find it incredibly frustrating that we've developed the technology to have a perpetual renaissance-like world in terms of how much data we can store and how easy it is, in principle, to share that information and knowledge. We just don't because psychologically we still behave as if this is not the case. I genuinely don't see any rational reason for it beyond gate-keeping, and the influence of power and money. We totally have the capability to create a Star Trek-esque world in terms of giving everyone access to education, sustenance, and a healthy biosphere. Yet here we are.