@Chloe I love the idea of Open Science, but I've been burned by a lot of "Open Science advocates" who don't seem to do anything other than shaming early-career academics for publishing in closed venues :/
I've also had an extremely negative experience with a journal that claims to embrace some newer publishing ideals, and I'm worried by the philosophy that "openness" will mean we can be lax about other things that will compromise science
@bgcarlisle that sucks, I'm rather new to all this honestly. But because I'm doing my thesis now I notice how often I'm cut off of papers by a paywall. I know researchers are at the mercy of the journals in this.
I do believe that openness may lead to be more lax in the beginning, but because of it openness more people are able to catch mistakes.
> because of it openness more people are able to catch mistakes
Yes and no
Here's an example—"open peer review," at F1000 means that the reviews and the reviewers' names are published with the article
Practically speaking this means that reviews are just the author's buddies patting them on the back
And when I was plagiarised at that journal, it meant that the reviewers doubled-down and attacked me, because they were publicly committed to being in favour of the (stolen) paper
@Chloe It's the "in the long run, the openness will provide incentives to ..."-type arguments that allow for enough space to completely undermine the validity of science in the short-term
Interesting. As I said, I'm new to the idea and I was just interested in your opinions. It's always nice to broaden your view and that's what I''m here for, thanks for your view :)
@Chloe Haha sorry I came on a bit strong there :S
I do really like the idea of Open Science, I really do!
But along with pretty much every other idea involving people, you have to think: how could this be used by a bunch of coordinated and unscrupulous people, acting to subvert it?
@bgcarlisle @Chloe it's also important to separate open access journals from open publishing journals (one of the newer, lax publishing ideals I strongly oppose). There are plenty of strict, high quality, high impact factor journals that are completely open access. But to your point: seems like most bad, open publishing journals are open access.
One potential route for unscrupulous action I can imagine is companies trying to dissuade or encourage investment on the back of un-reviewed work which is being shared openly for the benefit of an academic field (e.g. preprints). I think solutions lie with science/medical communicators who can think about their work as a type of innoculation against believing claims made with weak evidence and paper authors can try not to write with too much spin.
@Chloe a faculty member at my program is currently writing an open source e-textbook and has been convincing about the advantages of open source science in general... easy access to the public resulting in a more scientifically literate society, and open source materials do not punish financially struggling students
Knowledge wants to be free
In physics, I've been watching arXiv gradually gain momentum. In astronomy, most people share preprints on arXiv and the increased accessibility is excellent. In fact, it comes as a shock sometimes, trying to find a paper from chemistry or biology and realising how much more difficult things are when everything's paywalled. Chemistry in particular is really not very open.
In my idealistic opinion, finding and sharing information freely is what research should be about.
@invaderxan That's really cool. I mostly need chemistry and biology papers. Thanks to the school vpn and some rogue websites I often do get the acces, but it's so frustrating when you need to put in so much effort for sometimes a shitty/non relevant paper.
Ugh, I know what that's like. Sometimes an abstract feels a bit like clickbait. It's amazing how many times I've picked up a paper which claims to be about spectroscopy only to find that there isn't actually a spectrum in it!
I love open science but find it's hard to afford it. When I have more funding I will do it. When I have to decide between more isotope data points or publishing OA, the choice is obvious
@dantheclamman Ofcourse the research should always be the focal point!
It's obvious for me. I am a self funded early career researcher. Every dollar counts. I put up my preprints on website, researchgate and university repository but that's all that's feasible for me. While OA is awesome there was no support offered from my PhD institution to support it. But ultimately it's my choice and I choose to put the money into more isotope results.
At once I am pleased that ResearchGate is enabling sharing of scientific information, but don't ignore the efforts that librarians have been putting into pulling off a shared resources inside of the academic institution. I have come to believe that some sort of green open access plus a linked social network has a good chance of standing against traditional subscription journals. Another jargon term I have heard to describe a more open system is: scholarly commons.
@Chloe In my field, philosophy, I see no downside and a lot of upside to making every paper freely available. We have some journals like that already. The best is Philosophers' Imprint. Ergo is newer and starting well.
We have good things like the Open Logic Project.
I agree with the people who say that it's less clear that we should do peer review differently.
Micro impact: certain publishers with deep pockets will oppose this, and in the process destroy careers. Certain authors (I'm looking at you, pharma/med/wet engineering) will refuse; their vested interest is in controlling knowledge.
Macro impact: More research done faster, cheaper, sooner. Which will probably mean smaller grants, budgets. :sigh:
Problem 1: *where* or *for whom* that research may be done.
Problem 2: Datasets. They need to be open, too.
Scholar Social is a microblogging platform for researchers, grad students, librarians, archivists, undergrads, academically inclined high schoolers, educators of all levels, journal editors, research assistants, professors, administrators—anyone involved in academia who is willing to engage with others respectfully. Read more ...