When will scientists just self-publish?
It’s commonplace in my field (nuclear physics) to share the preprint version of your article, typically on arxiv.org. You can update the article as you respond to peer reviewers too. The only difference between this and the paywalls publisher version is that version will have additional formatting edits by the journal.
If you search for articles on google scholar, it groups the preprint and published versions together so it’s easy to find the non-paywalled copy. The standard journals I publish in even sort of encourage this; you can submit the latex documents and figures by just putting the url to an arxiv manuscript.
The US Department of Energy now requires any research they fund be made publicly available. So any article I publish is also automatically posted to osti.gov 1 year after its initial publication. This version is also grouped into the google scholar search results.
It’s an imperfect system, but it’s getting much better than it was even just a decade ago.
Kyle_The_G@lemmy.world 4 months ago
Because of “impact score” the journal your work gets placed in has a huge impact on future funding. Its a very frustrating process and trying to go around it is like suicide for your lab so it has to be more of a top-down fix because the bottom up is never going to happen.
Thats why everyone uses sci hub. These publishers are terrible companies up there with EA in unpopularity.
WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 4 months ago
It sounds like all it would take to destroy the predatory for-profit publication oligarchs is a majority of the top few hundred scientists, across major disciplines, rejecting it and switching to a completely decentralized peer-2-peer open-source system in protest… The publication companies seem to gate keep, and provide no value. It’s like Reddit. The site’s essentially worthless. All of the value is generated by the content creators.
kwomp2@sh.itjust.works 4 months ago
Succesfully iniating this from the fediverse would be such a massive boost in public visibility and discoursive strength of the project of collectivization of information infrastructure (like lemmy).
Imagine we fluffin freed science from capital and basically all the scientists openly stated how useful this was
Rayspekt@lemmy.world 4 months ago
I can only get so erect, please stop.
kwomp2@sh.itjust.works 4 months ago
(What I’m trying to say is you have my bow)
essteeyou@lemmy.world 4 months ago
So, shall we do it?
porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml 4 months ago
Those few top people are assholes who love the enormous power they wield over PhD students, postdocs and junior faculty, and they are usually editors on those big name journals. Unlike the people who actually do the work, they are getting paid from this system.
Kyle_The_G@lemmy.world 4 months ago
Ya that would be awesome and I think that movement would gain momentum really fast since most high profile labs have all had to deal with this nonsense.
That or legislation/open access rules to make these papers more accessible. One can dream.
Rolando@lemmy.world 4 months ago
It’s even worse for low profile labs because those publication fees eat up a greater proportion of our budget.
skillissuer@discuss.tchncs.de 4 months ago
the thing that they’re supposed to provide is peer review, solve that and we’re good to go. would be easier to do with some kind of central oversight and stable funding, we’re not talking about shitposting instance for 250 people that nobody will notice if it goes down
Rayspekt@lemmy.world 4 months ago
I know about impact factor but still this system is shit and only works because people contribute to it.
CareHare@sh.itjust.works 4 months ago
Even Nature publishes shit articles now and then. Impact score is becoming a joke more and more.