In the ongoing open access debate, which oldmedia publishers have been able to drag out for decades, oldmedia publishers have repeatedly made the assertion that articles in their very expensive journals are greatly improved during the publication process. Glyn Moody, writing at Techdirt, discusses the lack of value added by expensive, subscription-only journals over the original, freely-available pre-prints of the very same papers, thus negating the claims from the oldmedia publishers.
Such caveats aside, this is an important result that has not received the attention it deserves. It provides hard evidence of something that many have long felt: that academic publishers add almost nothing during the process of disseminating research in their high-profile products. The implications are that libraries should not be paying for expensive subscriptions to academic journals, but simply providing access to the equivalent preprints, which offer almost identical texts free of charge, and that researchers should concentrate on preprints, and forget about journals. Of course, that means that academic institutions must do the same when it comes to evaluating the publications of scholars applying for posts.
Scientific method requires that hypotheses be testable, and that means publishing anything necessary for a third party to reproduce an experiment. So some might even say that if your research ends up behind a paywall, then what you are doing is not even science in the formal sense of the concept.
Previously on SN :
New York Times Opinion Piece on Open Access Publishing (2016)
India's Ministry of Science & Technology Join Open-Access Push
(2015)
Open Access Papers Read and Cited More (2014)
(Score: 4, Insightful) by rigrig on Friday March 16 2018, @10:06AM (1 child)
No it doesn't, it involves formulating a hypothesis, thinking of a way to test it, predicting what will happen, performing the experiment, and updating your hypothesis based on a comparison of your result with your prediction.
No need to get anyone else involved.
This would imply that what you are doing is not science unless you make sure everybody has unlimited access to your results:
This is like saying that racing someone by running 100 meters is not sports in the formal sense of the concept if you post who came first behind a paywall.
No one remembers the singer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 16 2018, @11:57AM
Not that what you posted is badwrong, but in general if you have to resort to analogy to argue something maybe you need better arguments.