Pushing scholarly #publishing toward a 100% #openaccess model. https://aeon.co/ideas/scholarly-publishing-is-broken-heres-how-to-fix-it
This Aeon article includes discussion on improving the way peer review, etc. works. The author (Tennant) says" "All of the technology and traits to build a hybridised scholarly commons infrastructure already exists. It is up to academic communities themselves to step away from their apathy and towards a fairer and more democratic system for sharing our knowledge and work."
I find that so much "open science" activism is just: shaming early career scientists, and saying sentences that begin with "if everyone would just ..."
If he were proposing the legal abolition of copyright on academic work, now *that* would be something else
@bgcarlisle yeah, it seems there are a bunch of difficulties—often institutional problems in not recognizing the merit of various non-traditional modes of publishing. I'm remembering a discussion where a tenured scientist mentioned how much she pushes back to ensure that her work is open access but that newer researchers have less leeway. A lot of innovative new things could happen but I think we need to figure out how to improve the institutional perspective to get to those. (1/2)
@bgcarlisle Also, I'm not certain that copyright is at the heart of the problem. Creative Commons licences require copyright to work and they extend a variety of use cases that wouldn't otherwise exist. More importantly, how would Moral Right fare without copyright? (2/2)
@jc I mean, how could copyright not be at the heart of the problem?
If the laws protecting scientific published work were taken down, literally all of science would instantly become open access
I'm all for shaking up the system
But if we're gonna do it, let's actually do it, and not just nag people about it
@bgcarlisle thinking "out loud" if no copyright for scientific work, what would happen in this scenario? 3 researchers finish an important project and disseminate their results (via whatever publishing mechanism). Suppose 2 of them omit all mention of the 3rd. Aside from unfairness, that would close off information from the community because a key researcher would be silenced. Since I understand that attribution is among the moral rights in copyright law, I guess there wouldn't be much recourse.
@jc The law doesn't compel attribution, though
Source: I was very flagrantly plagiarised and neither the journal, nor the "author," nor even the Committee on Publication Ethics, nor my home institution, nor the institution of the prof who stole my work felt compelled to do anything about it
@bgcarlisle I was pretty certain that it did, I'm going to find out for sure. But let's say there's no copyright and we then get a different law to govern moral rights, wouldn't we essentially be where we are now through Creative Commons licences? They let you separate the commercial component from copyright and keep the moral rights.
@jc The difference would be:
1. Authors/journals wouldn't have the option of keeping their work under copyright, unlike the current system
2. Previously published work would also no longer be protected, unlike the current system, which requires authors to opt-in
3. Researchers won't have to spend money for an "open access fee," since journals won't have a legal way to stop authors/libraries/sci-hub from just posting papers online
@bgcarlisle I'm partial to the idea that info in the public space be transferable/copyable without restriction (assuming moral rights/attribution remain). It'd change how people view/are able to commercialize much, in extreme ways. I imagine that taking this beyond scientific work, to other research and creative domains would require serious change in society. Extending rights on intangible stuff (e.g. digital info) to logical extremes, eventually brings us to our own minds, which must be free.
@jc I'm just utterly unimpressed at how academic corporations have manipulated the machinery of public policy to give us: worse access to science (not all articles are ), moral condemnation for failing to publish as , and also attach an fee, getting the public to pay for them to waive the rights that public institutions granted them in the first place
@bookandswordblog @jc The article offhandedly mentions the possibility of redirecting university library budgets, but it would have been better to give examples of where this already happens: https://www.publishing.umich.edu/journals/
The reason it doesn't is possibly that the author is criticising the journal system as a whole.
A lot of authorial and editorial work in academia isn't paid by publishers anyway.
Scholar Social is meant 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.
We strive to be a safe space for queer people and other minorities, recognizing that there can only be academic freedom where the existence and validity of interlocutors' identities is taken as axiomatic.
"A Mastodon profile you can be proud to put on the last slide of a presentation at a conference"
(Participation is, of course, optional)
Scholar Social features a monthly "official" journal club, in which we try to read and comment on a paper of interest.
Any user of Scholar Social can suggest an article by sending the DOI by direct message to @email@example.com and one will be chosen by random lottery on the last day of the month. We ask that you only submit articles that are from *outside* your own field of study to try to ensure that the papers we read are accessible and interesting to non-experts.