As someone who has been through the university, earned a PhD, got grants, published, worked for startups, and now works for a large publisher, is it reasonable to think that I might be more informed than the average person on this topic?
-
-
-
-
-
Replying to @webdevMason
I can articulate the value to society more generally, as well. Would you like to hear it?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @webdevMason
New technologies, cures for diseases, better policy, & understanding of the world in general come about through academic research. Academic research is facilitated by sharing of trustworthy, high signal to noise ratio knowledge among academics.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mrgunn
I am not questioning the value of scientific research. I am questioning the value of a system that limits access to publicly-funded research to a tiny few, incentivizes positive results + overstated conclusions, & appears to be producing less notable work at an increasing cost
2 replies 1 retweet 7 likes -
Replying to @webdevMason
mrgunn Retweeted mrgunn
So there's a both a tremendous amount and not enough being done to address publication bias & that's a whole separate thread, but I do want to point out that there's a difference between research and the publication thereof. That's what I was getting at
https://twitter.com/mrgunn/status/1101580949555310592 …mrgunn added,
mrgunn @mrgunnReplying to @mrgunn @webdevMasonPublishing is a way to keep the signal to noise ratio high, ensure ethical standards are adhered to, raw data & code are made available, and that the papers use relatively readable language. I always feel like the role of the editor is overlooked in these discussions.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mrgunn @webdevMason
This process that facilitates communication of research is important and worth paying for. I believe more people would agree if they knew all that editors do.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Which is why it’s nothing short of scandalous that so much publicly funded work is subject to extreme gatekeeping practices that limit access to extremely narrow & costly channels.
-
-
Replying to @webdevMason
Your point about the gatekeeping is well made. It's part of way the signal to noise ratio is kept high, but has been unnecessarily restrictive at times. Preprint repositories and inexpensive open access journals are making it better.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @mrgunn @webdevMason
Shout out to http://Arxiv.org ,
@cshperspectives & Bioarxiv,@OSFramework, and@PLOS for leading the way here.0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
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.