|
Top-level
14 comments
@EposVox we should be academically careful to separate crypto profiteering from decentralized distributed consensus building systems with content addressable data. I see so many people in tech throwing the baby out with the bath water on these topics right now and I can’t wrap my head around it. We’re defending a system right now that almost no one I’ve ever spoken to perceives as just, or financially responsible. @Torfinn @EposVox Many journals (including those I publish in and review for) are published by academic societies or other non-profit bodies. They can be funded by a combination of library agreements, direct funding and ancillary revenue. Academic libraries and abstracting services are also very good at making sure material is preserved; that’s precisely their job. The problems lie elsewhere. @davidjamesweir @EposVox I’d love to see this be the standard rather than the exception but it seems like if you’re a neuroscientist doing research on something big you’re surely trying to get published in one of the big name for profit journals in order to gain the credit and prestige associated with them and I think that’s indicative of a system/ not situational issue. @davidjamesweir @Torfinn @EposVox And precisely with Springer, Wiley, and, possibly worst of all, Elsevier. @Natanael_L @EposVox for sure. Although I haven’t seen any open consensus protocols on git I’d love to. Not talking about difs here talking about automated trustless consensus validation you’d need to have sufficiently reliable peers in some unspecified quantity come to a quorum on the “peer review”  @Natanael_L @EposVox I definitely am not implying that the protocols should come to a consensus about the research itself 😅 @Natanael_L @Torfinn @EposVox You might be interested to hear about https://www.holochain.org/ (not a blockchain, to be clear, Holochain in itself has NO coin) Just spreading some information, if you have questions, I follow the project already quite some time @Torfinn @EposVox Researchers don't go to these publishers because they can't put their PDFs on a website. They go to these publishers because their publications are considered prestigious, and publishing at prestigious journals is effectively required to advance your career. The peer review processes are also independent from the publishers, they are organized and done by other researchers. The problem is social not technological. If universities stopped caring about the prestige of publication when making hiring/promotion decisions, researchers could cut the publishers out of the equation tomorrow. No block chain necessary, they already have the organizations and tools they need. |
Gregory's Server
@EposVox so who hosts the data, and what are the peer review consensus validation systems? If it’s already free then why are the publishers worth billions of dollars? Everyone says web2 solves this just fine and then kind of just don’t account for the fact that taxpayers are paying to paywall their own research they funded so a few pointless companies can make billions of dollars in the process? How can anyone be OK with this?!