Quick clarification: this "shaming" is not from bioRXiv, but from somebody who's decided they don't like this practice. As far as I can see this is simply posting final author copy of accepted manuscripts, otherwise called "green open access". This is encouraged by @PsyArXiv.
-
-
Weird blog post.
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @willjharrison @tsawallis and
I use biorxiv and disagree with Jordan. He doesn't represent biorxiv in any official capacity and he went ahead and wrote this medium article because he felt like it. He and I (and others) have disagreed on a lot over the years on Twitter.
1 reply 0 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @o_guest @willjharrison and
"So taken together, there could be a considerable number of people using bioRxiv as a postprint server…and getting away with it." This guy really loves his drama
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @DrGBuckingham @o_guest and
Seems odd that bioRxiv has a policy that they're ignoring and/or not enforcing, tho. (I don't have a strong opinion about the "open science violation" aspect either way.)
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @ctitusbrown @DrGBuckingham and
Agreed. I'm not convinced this shaming idea is what needs to be done though. Seems more like we should open a dialogue and see what's up. They may indeed be corrupt but not sure what the point of shaming violators and not the enforcers...
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
If it was crime — fine, sure, shame everybody. But this is not really anything morally corrupt other than the biorxiv being a bit fast and lose with their own rules, which seems bad but there's not real abuse here AFAIK!
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.
