Since this is an academic social, I was wondering how you guys feel about ?

Should we remove any obstacles to find and share scientific articles?
And how do you think will this impact research?

@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.

@openscience @tokoyami @bgcarlisle @Chloe

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

@Chloe science has been built by collaboration of many generation all around the world, it is the result of a collective work; it has not sense to restrict its access to the whole humanity. That is my point of view.

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.

More funding! But also applying for funding can suck up time to do science. And I've already been criticized for small sample sizes by my committee, so yeah every data point counted to get that PhD :blob_laughing:

@Shamar @Chloe
I have had a few dozen requests for the latest paper and raw data, mostly via researchgate, and made sure to respond to every one :)
My first paper was OA but that was when I was in a lab with the funding to make that happen.

@dantheclamman @Shamar @Chloe

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.

I like the idea of the social network, it could really help finding people in your field outside your own university circle/region.
@dantheclamman @Shamar

Oh I adore libraries and librarians. Just got a chapter from a rare book thanks to a determined librarian following up on my ILL request.
@Shamar @Chloe

Well there are open journals trying to make it cheaper like peerJ. Basically by moving to subscription model and scale. But it ain't cheap to pay editors and commit to host something for life and I don't think that's gonna change.

@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.

@Chloe I am new to the discussion, but I really enjoyed on the recent initiatives like PlanS in the EU. See

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Scholar Social

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 ...