Government research grants should forbid publication of research in only paywalled journals. Journals like Nature and Science require that submissions not be available to the public. That must end.
Open Science shifts the payment burden from the 'reader/subscriber' to the 'author' who has conducted the research in the form of Article Processing Charges (APCs). Shouldn't a system be developed where the author benefits financially from their contributions? In a publish-or-perish world, this takes a toll on the authors.
It is up to those seeking grant funding to express the idea that "Look where I published" may not be the most accurate measurement of their competency as a scientist.
Fine. Open access is good. However, for authors without financial support it is quite expensive to publish. The idea is great but not pragmatic across all areas across all researchers.
College student here - our students government just meet with other SG groups throughout texas so we can get public funding for open access textbooks. I am a small l libertarian because there are certain things that the private sector is annoying at. Never open access means more competition in the market driving down prices
I all for open scientific papers, I'm all for consumer rights through regulation and for net neutrality. People who think that their cookie cutter ideology can be used everywhere have a too simple approach to reality.
Dr. Alvin Weinberg, director of Oak Ridge National Lab, invented his preferred civilian nuclear reactor for passive safety at low pressures. Search Molten Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE).
Interesting video, but I'd like to clarify the description of the differences in the peer-review process between open access journals and traditional journals. Peer-review in specific paid journals is done by scientists who are expert in the field of the article being published. Open-access journals do not have experts in every field to verify the validity of the data published, so their peer-review process is necessarily less rigorous. Other good points were made about the value of open access journals in the video however, especially for providing a platform for valuable, unsupported science.
Regulations always make things worst. If you don't like something about society than use the free market to change it. Persuade people to change but don't dare to use the government to make things worst and take our freedoms away.
German Carranza It doesn't make things worse in regard to the environment though with basic regualtion on things like water, air, and solid pollution. Yea it has some downside, but isn't the upside much better for this case in particular?
Coalitions around principled ideas are fine. Tribal coalitions around nothing more complex than a party label are destructive. Political parties are not formed around principled ideas, but the latter.
Sure, they started around central ideas. That doesn't mean that is what they are today. Today political parties are a form of natural, human tribalism. We do not care about principle or ideas, but rather we care and instantly agree with the opinions of those leading our parties. We find ways to morally justify the opinions which combat our own moral beliefs, the abhorrent actions, and the hypocrisy of those in our own party simply because they are on our team (see Republican Roy Moore sympathizers and/or feminist Bill Clinton sympathizers in the '90s)
Brentjr94 You still haven't explained how idea coalitions will be any different than political parties. How will idea coalitions avoid the tribalism you are talking about and aren't there people on both sides who speak against the parties inconsistencies and hypocrisy? Should it not be your job to tell people that they are being tribal and to remember the ideals of the party? You do know that political parties still have ideals right?
Political parties as a term is an abstraction from what we have. What we have has very close to zero accountability to us and gets to skate around doing their job by blackmailing us. I'm not sure why you would defend any of the parties in power in the United States of America.
Apparently this guy missed Economics 101. Whatever you incentivize, people will start doing. Since there is such a strong incentive for researchers to produce research findings, because people pay for it, there is a strong incentive for researchers to continue doing it. Doing things for public charity is nice, but it's not money.
We're developing a collective action platform to help researchers drive change in the publishing system. Pledge to change your publishing behaviours (e.g. publish exclusively open access), but only after a critical mass of support is reached in your field. Check out freeourknowledge.org for more info and to make a pledge today!
People hate Middle man not because he is making money but mostly middle man creates monopoly or oligarchy and control the flow and go after anyone who try to bypass them.
Government research grants should forbid publication of research in only paywalled journals. Journals like Nature and Science require that submissions not be available to the public. That must end.
George Applegate sounds like the perfect rider on a budget bill
Get government out all together
Christopher Hitchens said he became a journalist so he wouldn't have to trust the news to tell him the real story. That's why I became a scientist.
Hows that going these days? Clearly science is out of control.
Open-Source... This is not complicated. If you want a problem solved... let everyone on the planet have a go...
Open Science shifts the payment burden from the 'reader/subscriber' to the 'author' who has conducted the research in the form of Article Processing Charges (APCs). Shouldn't a system be developed where the author benefits financially from their contributions? In a publish-or-perish world, this takes a toll on the authors.
There're a lot of open access journals by the way. A good reason to publish on them is it means more people read it.
Which is the point.
The problem is the grant funding; how do you justify your grants? "Look at where I published..."
It is up to those seeking grant funding to express the idea that "Look where I published" may not be the most accurate measurement of their competency as a scientist.
Brentjr94 sadly that is the culture, want a faculty position? Where did you publish, which uni did you come from...
@@Ultrajamz Check out freeourknowledge.org for a novel solution to the cultural inertia problem
Fine. Open access is good. However, for authors without financial support it is quite expensive to publish. The idea is great but not pragmatic across all areas across all researchers.
True. I am surprised many aren't talking about it.
College student here - our students government just meet with other SG groups throughout texas so we can get public funding for open access textbooks. I am a small l libertarian because there are certain things that the private sector is annoying at. Never open access means more competition in the market driving down prices
I all for open scientific papers, I'm all for consumer rights through regulation and for net neutrality.
People who think that their cookie cutter ideology can be used everywhere have a too simple approach to reality.
Dr. Alvin Weinberg, director of Oak Ridge National Lab, invented his preferred civilian nuclear reactor for passive safety at low pressures. Search Molten Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE).
Yea that is one thing that was irritating when doing research
He takes his assumption as fact....
Interesting video, but I'd like to clarify the description of the differences in the peer-review process between open access journals and traditional journals. Peer-review in specific paid journals is done by scientists who are expert in the field of the article being published. Open-access journals do not have experts in every field to verify the validity of the data published, so their peer-review process is necessarily less rigorous. Other good points were made about the value of open access journals in the video however, especially for providing a platform for valuable, unsupported science.
Regulations always make things worst. If you don't like something about society than use the free market to change it. Persuade people to change but don't dare to use the government to make things worst and take our freedoms away.
German Carranza It doesn't make things worse in regard to the environment though with basic regualtion on things like water, air, and solid pollution. Yea it has some downside, but isn't the upside much better for this case in particular?
Hawksm278 not particularly. It still makes way for overreach and generally rushed decisions with unfortunate consequences.
Utter nonsense. I'm guessing you're not a scientist... at all.
Another winner from Reason. You can smell the sarcasm, right?
Why do an open access journal do charge an author?
yes
Very good idea 🙏🙏🙏
I love your videos!
Non-subsidised scientists have the right to make a profit of their findings.
Science should always be subsided.
Good video
This guys said that political parties are bad but he also said that people "should form coalitions around ideas". I'm so confused lol...
Coalitions around principled ideas are fine. Tribal coalitions around nothing more complex than a party label are destructive. Political parties are not formed around principled ideas, but the latter.
Brentjr94 How do you think political parties started?
Sure, they started around central ideas. That doesn't mean that is what they are today. Today political parties are a form of natural, human tribalism. We do not care about principle or ideas, but rather we care and instantly agree with the opinions of those leading our parties. We find ways to morally justify the opinions which combat our own moral beliefs, the abhorrent actions, and the hypocrisy of those in our own party simply because they are on our team (see Republican Roy Moore sympathizers and/or feminist Bill Clinton sympathizers in the '90s)
Brentjr94 You still haven't explained how idea coalitions will be any different than political parties. How will idea coalitions avoid the tribalism you are talking about and aren't there people on both sides who speak against the parties inconsistencies and hypocrisy? Should it not be your job to tell people that they are being tribal and to remember the ideals of the party? You do know that political parties still have ideals right?
Political parties as a term is an abstraction from what we have. What we have has very close to zero accountability to us and gets to skate around doing their job by blackmailing us. I'm not sure why you would defend any of the parties in power in the United States of America.
He wouldn't win as a republican in California that's why he runs as independent
I keep my university e-mail account so access this stuff. Lucky for me duke university is in the same city
Apparently this guy missed Economics 101. Whatever you incentivize, people will start doing. Since there is such a strong incentive for researchers to produce research findings, because people pay for it, there is a strong incentive for researchers to continue doing it. Doing things for public charity is nice, but it's not money.
We're developing a collective action platform to help researchers drive change in the publishing system. Pledge to change your publishing behaviours (e.g. publish exclusively open access), but only after a critical mass of support is reached in your field. Check out freeourknowledge.org for more info and to make a pledge today!
Climate?
Oh dear
Liberty&Nonintervention Yeah he's part of the conspiracy to be alble to sell fucking solarpanels and therefore take over the world.
This interviewer's nods are hilarious
This guy is a scary wannabe technocrat.
It'll work this time if only our computers are good enough to centrally plan the economy. I promise.
those libertarians want to excess everything for free. they dont want to pay for it. this sense of entitlement though.
People hate Middle man not because he is making money but mostly middle man creates monopoly or oligarchy and control the flow and go after anyone who try to bypass them.
Reason = SJW Liberals.
Phone User troll
Phone user.
Oh my fucking god.
Is this the image you want to give libertarians? A guy who calls everyone a communist in order to ad hominem them.