Mason  🏃‍♂️ ✂️

Go for it.

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.

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

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 …

Funny, because when you asserted your far superior understanding of “the value of academic publishing,” I was actually expecting a defense of that and not of literally all research.

The argument I'm making is essentially: research is important, publishing facilitates research, so publishing is important. There are other ways to facilitate it, too, but publishing is a big one.

I eagerly followed this conversation hoping for something more substantial than this. I’m pretty sure any person who seriously cares about dismantling the publishing-industrial complex, cares in part because they recognize that research is important & should be accessible to all

I did go into greater detail, but the thread fractured into several pieces. I agree research is important, but the discussion was about publications of research. Anyone can post their manuscript online, but that doesn't necessarily make it accessible.