Preskoči na sadržaj
Korištenjem servisa na Twitteru pristajete na korištenje kolačića. Twitter i partneri rade globalno te koriste kolačiće za analize, personalizaciju i oglase.

Za najbolje sučelje na Twitteru koristite Microsoft Edge ili instalirajte aplikaciju Twitter iz trgovine Microsoft Store.

  • Naslovnica Naslovnica Naslovnica, trenutna stranica.
  • O Twitteru

Spremljena pretraživanja

  • obriši
  • U ovom razgovoru
    Ovjeren akauntZaštićeni tweetovi @
Predloženi korisnici
  • Ovjeren akauntZaštićeni tweetovi @
  • Ovjeren akauntZaštićeni tweetovi @
  • Jezik: Hrvatski
    • Bahasa Indonesia
    • Bahasa Melayu
    • Català
    • Čeština
    • Dansk
    • Deutsch
    • English
    • English UK
    • Español
    • Filipino
    • Français
    • Italiano
    • Magyar
    • Nederlands
    • Norsk
    • Polski
    • Português
    • Română
    • Slovenčina
    • Suomi
    • Svenska
    • Tiếng Việt
    • Türkçe
    • Български език
    • Русский
    • Српски
    • Українська мова
    • Ελληνικά
    • עִבְרִית
    • العربية
    • فارسی
    • मराठी
    • हिन्दी
    • বাংলা
    • ગુજરાતી
    • தமிழ்
    • ಕನ್ನಡ
    • ภาษาไทย
    • 한국어
    • 日本語
    • 简体中文
    • 繁體中文
  • Imate račun? Prijava
    Imate račun?
    · Zaboravili ste lozinku?

    Novi ste na Twitteru?
    Registrirajte se
Profil korisnika/ce michael_nielsen
michael_nielsen
michael_nielsen
michael_nielsen
@michael_nielsen

Tweets

michael_nielsen

@michael_nielsen

Searching for the numinous. Co-purveyor of https://quantum.country/ 

San Francisco, CA
michaelnielsen.org
Vrijeme pridruživanja: srpanj 2008.

Tweets

  • © 2020 Twitter
  • O Twitteru
  • Centar za pomoć
  • Uvjeti
  • Pravila o privatnosti
  • Imprint
  • Kolačići
  • Informacije o oglasima
Odbaci
Prethodni
Sljedeće

Idite na profil osobe

Spremljena pretraživanja

  • obriši
  • U ovom razgovoru
    Ovjeren akauntZaštićeni tweetovi @
Predloženi korisnici
  • Ovjeren akauntZaštićeni tweetovi @
  • Ovjeren akauntZaštićeni tweetovi @

Odjava

Blokiraj

  • Objavi Tweet s lokacijom

    U tweetove putem weba ili aplikacija drugih proizvođača možete dodati podatke o lokaciji, kao što su grad ili točna lokacija. Povijest lokacija tweetova uvijek možete izbrisati. Saznajte više

    Vaši popisi

    Izradi novi popis


    Manje od 100 znakova, neobavezno

    Privatnost

    Kopiraj vezu u tweet

    Ugradi ovaj Tweet

    Embed this Video

    Dodajte ovaj Tweet na svoje web-mjesto kopiranjem koda u nastavku. Saznajte više

    Dodajte ovaj videozapis na svoje web-mjesto kopiranjem koda u nastavku. Saznajte više

    Hm, došlo je do problema prilikom povezivanja s poslužiteljem.

    Integracijom Twitterova sadržaja u svoje web-mjesto ili aplikaciju prihvaćate Twitterov Ugovor za programere i Pravila za programere.

    Pregled

    Razlog prikaza oglasa

    Prijavi se na Twitter

    · Zaboravili ste lozinku?
    Nemate račun? Registrirajte se »

    Prijavite se na Twitter

    Niste na Twitteru? Registrirajte se, uključite se u stvari koje vas zanimaju, i dobivajte promjene čim se dogode.

    Registrirajte se
    Imate račun? Prijava »

    Dvosmjerni (slanje i primanje) kratki kodovi:

    Država Kod Samo za korisnike
    Sjedinjene Američke Države 40404 (bilo koje)
    Kanada 21212 (bilo koje)
    Ujedinjeno Kraljevstvo 86444 Vodafone, Orange, 3, O2
    Brazil 40404 Nextel, TIM
    Haiti 40404 Digicel, Voila
    Irska 51210 Vodafone, O2
    Indija 53000 Bharti Airtel, Videocon, Reliance
    Indonezija 89887 AXIS, 3, Telkomsel, Indosat, XL Axiata
    Italija 4880804 Wind
    3424486444 Vodafone
    » Pogledajte SMS kratke šifre za druge zemlje

    Potvrda

     

    Dobro došli kući!

    Vremenska crta mjesto je na kojem ćete provesti najviše vremena i bez odgode dobivati novosti o svemu što vam je važno.

    Tweetovi vam ne valjaju?

    Prijeđite pokazivačem preko slike profila pa kliknite gumb Pratim da biste prestali pratiti neki račun.

    Kažite mnogo uz malo riječi

    Kada vidite Tweet koji volite, dodirnite srce – to osobi koja ga je napisala daje do znanja da vam se sviđa.

    Proširite glas

    Najbolji je način da podijelite nečiji Tweet s osobama koje vas prate prosljeđivanje. Dodirnite ikonu da biste smjesta poslali.

    Pridruži se razgovoru

    Pomoću odgovora dodajte sve što mislite o nekom tweetu. Pronađite temu koja vam je važna i uključite se.

    Saznajte najnovije vijesti

    Bez odgode pogledajte o čemu ljudi razgovaraju.

    Pratite više onoga što vam se sviđa

    Pratite više računa da biste dobivali novosti o temama do kojih vam je stalo.

    Saznajte što se događa

    Bez odgode pogledajte najnovije razgovore o bilo kojoj temi.

    Ne propustite nijedan aktualni događaj

    Bez odgode pratite kako se razvijaju događaji koje pratite.

    1. michael_nielsen‏ @michael_nielsen 2. ožu 2019.
      • Prijavi Tweet

      Encouraged by the University of California's widely-discussed decision to push back against Elsevier:https://www.chronicle.com/article/U-of-California-System/245798 …

      17 replies 122 proslijeđena tweeta 389 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
      Prikaži ovu nit
    2. michael_nielsen‏ @michael_nielsen 2. ožu 2019.
      • Prijavi Tweet

      There's been a lot of associated commentary of the form "let's get the evil for-profits out of science". This commentary is well-intentioned, but misdiagnoses the underlying problems.

      9 proslijeđenih tweetova 39 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
      Prikaži ovu nit
    3. michael_nielsen‏ @michael_nielsen 2. ožu 2019.
      • Prijavi Tweet

      My thinking about the role of for-profits started to change after reading John Willinsky's pro-open access book "The Access Principle".

      1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 27 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
      Prikaži ovu nit
    4. michael_nielsen‏ @michael_nielsen 2. ožu 2019.
      • Prijavi Tweet

      Willinsky points out that in the second half of the 20th century, not-for-profit society publishers were often remarkably conservative. A new adjacent sub-field of science would open up, they'd respond "not our area", and only very slowly expand the scope of their journals.

      0 proslijeđenih tweetova 25 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
      Prikaži ovu nit
    5. michael_nielsen‏ @michael_nielsen 2. ožu 2019.
      • Prijavi Tweet

      Much of the slack was taken up by for-profit publishers, who were far more willing to provide a space for people developing new sub-fields of science.

      1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 26 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
      Prikaži ovu nit
    6. michael_nielsen‏ @michael_nielsen 2. ožu 2019.
      • Prijavi Tweet

      That helped researchers in new sub-fields establish legitimacy, and build out those sub-fields. It was a case where for-profit publishers and the profit motive were serving a broad social good.

      1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 28 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
      Prikaži ovu nit
    7. michael_nielsen‏ @michael_nielsen 2. ožu 2019.
      • Prijavi Tweet

      Okay, that's food for thought, but I doubt this specific effect is all that large.

      1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 10 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
      Prikaži ovu nit
    8. michael_nielsen‏ @michael_nielsen 2. ožu 2019.
      • Prijavi Tweet

      There's a broader & more important point though: we want a scientific publishing system where someone can start a new journal / repository / database (etc), & if it serves society as a whole better than existing solutions, it will rapidly grow to replace or augment them.

      5 proslijeđenih tweetova 40 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
      Prikaži ovu nit
    9. michael_nielsen‏ @michael_nielsen 2. ožu 2019.
      • Prijavi Tweet

      For instance: all other things equal we want well-run open access journals to grow & outcompete even well-run closed access journals, since the OA journals provide more social benefit.

      1 reply 2 proslijeđena tweeta 23 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđa
      Prikaži ovu nit
      michael_nielsen‏ @michael_nielsen 2. ožu 2019.
      • Prijavi Tweet

      To the extent journals, databases, and other services remain closed access, we want prices to come down, while maintaining or increasing the rate at which those services improve.

      16:11 - 2. ožu 2019.
      • 17 oznaka „sviđa mi se”
      • Rushi Yog Mehta Wojtek Kozak Naveh D. Shetrit CleanApp 🌱 Michael Keenan Lama Kyle Russell 🎮📲 Evan Goldstein
      1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 17 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
        1. Novi razgovor
        2. michael_nielsen‏ @michael_nielsen 2. ožu 2019.
          • Prijavi Tweet

          We want socially beneficial ideas like preprint repositories, open data archives, open code platforms, and so on, to thrive and grow, and to try out experimental ideas.

          1 reply 2 proslijeđena tweeta 26 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
          Prikaži ovu nit
        3. michael_nielsen‏ @michael_nielsen 2. ožu 2019.
          • Prijavi Tweet

          Ideally, we want a thriving ecosystem of these things, with the best - meaning, the most beneficial for society as a whole (not just the publishers, or just scientists) - rapidly growing and flourishing.

          1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 18 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
          Prikaži ovu nit
        4. michael_nielsen‏ @michael_nielsen 2. ožu 2019.
          • Prijavi Tweet

          There's many systemic reasons this isn't happening at the moment. The market is terribly inefficient. Here's a few structural ways the market is broken.

          1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 12 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
          Prikaži ovu nit
        5. michael_nielsen‏ @michael_nielsen 2. ožu 2019.
          • Prijavi Tweet

          Brokenness 1: Perverse incentives. A nice illustrative story from Andrew Odlyzko (https://firstmonday.org/article/view/542/463#IV …. ). In the 1970s Elsevier's journal Nuclear Physics B took over as the top journal in particle physics, from Physical Review D.

          1 reply 1 proslijeđeni tweet 18 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
          Prikaži ovu nit
        6. michael_nielsen‏ @michael_nielsen 2. ožu 2019.
          • Prijavi Tweet

          Why? Physical Review D cost far less. But Physical Review D had page charges. Nuclear Physics B dropped their page charges, & authors began to submit more and more of work there. Presto, it became the top journal!pic.twitter.com/ThrJb1zNuI

          1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 13 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
          Prikaži ovu nit
        7. michael_nielsen‏ @michael_nielsen 2. ožu 2019.
          • Prijavi Tweet

          The underlying trouble is that researchers have a lot of power over buying decisions by university libraries, but do not bear the cost of those decisions (the libraries do). So they're price-insensitive. Such a separation of decision-making power from costs leads to bad outcomes

          7 proslijeđenih tweetova 61 korisnik označava da mu se sviđa
          Prikaži ovu nit
        8. michael_nielsen‏ @michael_nielsen 2. ožu 2019.
          • Prijavi Tweet

          Instead of having a market where maximizing revenues also means maximizing social benefit, we have a dreadfully inefficient market where maximizing revenue benefits no-one _except_ the publisher.

          1 reply 2 proslijeđena tweeta 27 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
          Prikaži ovu nit
        9. michael_nielsen‏ @michael_nielsen 2. ožu 2019.
          • Prijavi Tweet

          Brokenness 2: The big deal. Journals used to be sold a la carte. But beginning in 1996 was the era of the era of "the big deal" (e.g. https://poynder.blogspot.com/2012/10/open-access-in-uk-reinventing-big-deal.html … ). Instead of buying journals individually, libraries bought them in big bundles, sometimes of thousands of journals.

          1 reply 2 proslijeđena tweeta 16 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
          Prikaži ovu nit
        10. michael_nielsen‏ @michael_nielsen 2. ožu 2019.
          • Prijavi Tweet

          In many ways this was good. The internet meant that publishing infrastructure could be centralized, giving big publishers economies of scale. Bundling passed some of those economies of scale onto customers.

          1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 8 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
          Prikaži ovu nit
        11. michael_nielsen‏ @michael_nielsen 2. ožu 2019.
          • Prijavi Tweet

          But it had many negative consequences. It meant that journals became a commodity bought in bulk, typically distinguished only by a very imperfect brand / quality marker like impact factor.

          1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 12 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
          Prikaži ovu nit
        12. michael_nielsen‏ @michael_nielsen 2. ožu 2019.
          • Prijavi Tweet

          This was happening at a time when experimental new ideas should have been flourishing. At such a time you don't want things bought in bulk, you want them bought bespoke, based on highly idiosyncratic and individual criteria.

          1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 8 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
          Prikaži ovu nit
        13. michael_nielsen‏ @michael_nielsen 2. ožu 2019.
          • Prijavi Tweet

          And so instead of competing on the basis of amazing new product types, increased product quality, & increased access, publishers instead compete by achieving economies of scale, driving down operating costs while maintaining revenue, improved sales, & maximizing brand lock-in.

          1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 21 korisnik označava da mu se sviđa
          Prikaži ovu nit
        14. michael_nielsen‏ @michael_nielsen 2. ožu 2019.
          • Prijavi Tweet

          This is reflected in many ways: most obviously, the many mergers and acquisitions of publishers, giving increased economies of scale. This has the very unfortunate by-product of reducing competition.

          1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 8 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
          Prikaži ovu nit
        15. michael_nielsen‏ @michael_nielsen 2. ožu 2019.
          • Prijavi Tweet

          It also means that many (not all) of the people running scientific publishing are business people who specialize in managing operations (driving down operating costs while maintaining revenue), and in sales and marketing

          1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 15 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
          Prikaži ovu nit
        16. michael_nielsen‏ @michael_nielsen 2. ožu 2019.
          • Prijavi Tweet

          An example: IIRC Derk Haank, the CEO of Elsevier from 1998-2004 and of Springer, later Springer-Nature, from 2004 to 2017, did his PhD on economies of scale.

          1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 17 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
          Prikaži ovu nit
        17. michael_nielsen‏ @michael_nielsen 2. ožu 2019.
          • Prijavi Tweet

          Nothing intrinsically wrong with this. But we're at a time in history where the socially beneficial act isn't driving down operating costs while maintaining revenue. It's producing marvellous new tools, increasing access, etc. Current market structure isn't supporting this well

          1 proslijeđeni tweet 34 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđa
          Prikaži ovu nit
        18. michael_nielsen‏ @michael_nielsen 2. ožu 2019.
          • Prijavi Tweet

          Brokenness 3: The lack of growth models for the best new ideas. An example is the arXiv preprint server. It's one of humanity's great achievements of the past 30 years. Just in economic terms, over the long run it will generate trillions of dollars in social utility for humanity

          12 proslijeđenih tweetova 74 korisnika označavaju da im se sviđa
          Prikaži ovu nit
        19. michael_nielsen‏ @michael_nielsen 2. ožu 2019.
          • Prijavi Tweet

          If it captured just a tiny fraction, the arXiv would have a budget of tens or hundreds of millions of dollars a year. Instead, the arXiv has struggled to make budget for much of its existence. It can't grow or innovate the way it should, & changes at a glacial pace.

          4 proslijeđena tweeta 39 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
          Prikaži ovu nit
        20. michael_nielsen‏ @michael_nielsen 2. ožu 2019.
          • Prijavi Tweet

          No criticism of the arXiv intended - this is a consequence of a systemic factor: the lack of good growth models that enable great services to grow and change and improve.

          1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 29 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
          Prikaži ovu nit
        21. michael_nielsen‏ @michael_nielsen 2. ožu 2019.
          • Prijavi Tweet

          You see this pattern repeated over and over for a tonne of new tools. Great new tool, no growth model. And so they stagnate and languish.

          1 reply 1 proslijeđeni tweet 25 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
          Prikaži ovu nit
        22. michael_nielsen‏ @michael_nielsen 2. ožu 2019.
          • Prijavi Tweet

          One response is to say "Oh, the NSF [or whoever] should give a lot more funding."

          1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 7 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
          Prikaži ovu nit
        23. michael_nielsen‏ @michael_nielsen 2. ožu 2019.
          • Prijavi Tweet

          I'm sympathetic, but only as a stopgap. It's not a good long-run solution. If centralized authorities are providing money, you end with the arXiv (or whoever) as a de facto incumbent, being funded by decisions made by a small group of ppl. This is a recipe for stagnation, at best

          1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 25 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
          Prikaži ovu nit
        24. michael_nielsen‏ @michael_nielsen 2. ožu 2019.
          • Prijavi Tweet

          What you really want is to encourage the arXiv to grow & innovate, _and_ also to fund potential competitors who aim to do even better than the arXiv. And, if things are healthy, they will replace the arXiv.

          1 reply 2 proslijeđena tweeta 20 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
          Prikaži ovu nit
        25. michael_nielsen‏ @michael_nielsen 2. ožu 2019.
          • Prijavi Tweet

          So, to come back to where we started: are for-profits bad? Should we aim for a not-for-profit future in scientific publishing?

          1 reply 2 proslijeđena tweeta 11 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
          Prikaži ovu nit
        26. michael_nielsen‏ @michael_nielsen 2. ožu 2019.
          • Prijavi Tweet

          I hope it's clear these questions miss the point. Better questions are: what's the growth model for innovation? Is the market set up to enable the flourishing of many good new ideas that will benefit humanity? At the moment, it's not doing a great job, in my opinion.

          6 proslijeđenih tweetova 40 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
          Prikaži ovu nit
        27. michael_nielsen‏ @michael_nielsen 2. ožu 2019.
          • Prijavi Tweet

          Instead, incumbent organizations maximize revenue in ways that do serve some social job (journals are good things), but far less than could be done, and often with a lot of negative behaviours. This is true both of for-profits like Elsevier, & of many not-for-profit publishers

          0 proslijeđenih tweetova 9 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
          Prikaži ovu nit
        28. michael_nielsen‏ @michael_nielsen 2. ožu 2019.
          • Prijavi Tweet

          Go take a look at the American Chemical Society, a not-for-profit publisher with billions in revenue. Historically they've been far more hostile to ideas like open access and open data than Elsevier & the other large for-profit publishers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Chemical_Society#Controversies …

          5 proslijeđenih tweetova 21 korisnik označava da mu se sviđa
          Prikaži ovu nit
        29. michael_nielsen‏ @michael_nielsen 2. ožu 2019.
          • Prijavi Tweet

          Many other not-for-profit society publishers aren't much better. Any serious argument that "for-profits are bad" needs to engage with this fact.

          2 proslijeđena tweeta 18 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
          Prikaži ovu nit
        30. michael_nielsen‏ @michael_nielsen 2. ožu 2019.
          • Prijavi Tweet

          So, what to do? A lot of progress so far has come from things like the Bermuda Principles, whereby the NIH and Wellcome Trust essentially forced biologists to share human genome data. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bermuda_Principles …

          1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 17 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
          Prikaži ovu nit
        31. michael_nielsen‏ @michael_nielsen 2. ožu 2019.
          • Prijavi Tweet

          Or the NIH public access policy, which requires NIH-funded research papers to be shared after an embargo period: https://publicaccess.nih.gov/ 

          1 reply 0 proslijeđenih tweetova 15 korisnika označava da im se sviđa
          Prikaži ovu nit
        32. Još 8 drugih odgovora

      Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.

      Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.

        Sponzorirani tweet

        false

        • © 2020 Twitter
        • O Twitteru
        • Centar za pomoć
        • Uvjeti
        • Pravila o privatnosti
        • Imprint
        • Kolačići
        • Informacije o oglasima