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.
Show this thread
-
At the same time, over the long run we want to avoid running things through centralized control. Command-and-control economies have a terrible historical record, and usually end up inhibiting innovation.
Show this thread
That's my view of the problems. What of the solutions? How to create a healthy competitive marketplace in scientific publishing?
-
-
There's not going to be a silver bullet. It's going to require hundreds of changes. One crucial change is getting existing funders to take software tools seriously. Budgets for tools, for programmers, for long-term maintenance, & VC / grants for new organizations to develop tools
Show this thread -
And payment for services needs to align incentives: the people benefiting from the services should be paying for them, to set up the virtuous feedback loop: genuinely better service => more revenue.
Show this thread -
This is a tough problem for open * solutions (open access, data, code, collaboration). It still hasn't been solved in the world of open source software. Though companies like Kickstarter and Patreon and ideas like dominant assurance contracts are making progress in this space.
Show this thread -
Still, I'm optimistic we can solve these problems. Danny Hillis has observed that "there are problems that are impossible if you think about them in two-year terms - which everyone does - but they're easy if you think in fifty-year terms." I think this is a problem of this type!
Show this thread -
Addendum: This tweet's sole purpose is to make the previous tweet grammatically correct.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Normalize DIY publishing! I think our biggest footgun was swallowing the notion that credibility flows from the publishing venue. Since credibility is the currency we're paid in, we ended up handing tremendous gatekeeping power to groups that don't share our goals.
-
Oh and shameless self-plug while I'm here:https://mobile.twitter.com/AndrewGYork/status/965765089373515776 …
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
Dissociate the three main stages of publishing: dissemination (preprints), quality control (graded peer review), and curation (overlay journals) - https://arxiv.org/pdf/1205.1055.pdf …
@BrianNosek. If we can achieve that, competition will naturally arise within each stage -
Of course, competition within curation stage would likely require getting rid of the Ingelfinger rule, but most arguments for it are outdated anyway ('keeping unreviewed research out of the public domain'? try predatory journals) and it maintains a dysfunctional market
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.