posted by
Fnord666
on Tuesday February 26 2019, @04:08PM
from the dogs-and-cats-living-together dept.
from the dogs-and-cats-living-together dept.
What happens to research that is funded by taxpayers? A lot ends up in subscription-only journals, protected from the eyes of most by a paywall.
But a new initiative known as Plan S could change that. Plan S focuses on making all publicly funded research immediately fully and freely available by open access publication.
It sounds like a good idea – but there are possible downsides. This model could potentially undermine peer review, the process vital for ensuring the rigour and quality of published research. It could also increase costs of publication for researchers and funding bodies. So let's do Plan S right.
Taxpayers will have the right to see the research they paid for?
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
All Publicly Funded Australian Research Could Soon Be Free for You, the Taxpayer, to Read
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 27 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
(1)
(Score: 1) by infodragon on Tuesday February 26 2019, @04:48PM
I couldn't read that and not have the scene from Ghost Busters with Bill Murray go off on the Mayor run through my head!
Don't settle for shampoo, demand real poo!
(Score: 0, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26 2019, @05:02PM (12 children)
This is the biggest load of BS I have ever heard. Far from being vital for good research, it is an actively negative force in research.
Peer review is a very recent phenomenon associated with the rise of government funded crap academic research since WWII. The quality is so much worse now than it was the first half of the 20th century, just go read some old papers to find out.
In many fields no progress has been made since at least the 1970s, this is not surprising since every study on peer review shows it only serves to reinforce status quo beliefs.
http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/three-myths-about-scientific-peer-review/ [michaelnielsen.org]
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26 2019, @05:08PM (4 children)
Well exactly!
And what the fuck does "undermine peer review" mean?
Our whole language is suffering for this kind of crap. This is why people like Trump and Clinton win elections. *Baffle 'em with Bullshit* Works every time!
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Tuesday February 26 2019, @06:30PM (3 children)
I think it means that they will stop paying the peer reviewers. Of course, they do not do that now. So I have no idea what they mean.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26 2019, @06:45PM (2 children)
"peer reviewers" are just supposed to be other professors, students, and shit. Problem is, they're probably high while they're reading that stuff.. Heh, it's the only way to get through it. And it's late, the old lady wants you in bed... You know what? Fuck this journal crap!
Let's do it in reverse. If nobody (like, the competition, because, you know, there's always money in tearing stuff down) says a study is bullshit, then assume it's good.
Oh, and the troll moderator up there can go fuck himself!
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26 2019, @09:19PM (1 child)
And the troll moderator right here can fuck himself too! What the fuck is the matter with you assholes? What a bunch of dicks! I shall pray for karma to smite you!
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26 2019, @11:12PM
We will not let you have any karma! For we are capitalists, and we own all the karma, even the karma you produce with the sweat of your brow using our means of karma production, because you are a proletarian who only has his labor power to sell. Don't like it? Well, it's a two party system! You're wasting your vote if you vote for anybody other than the two pre-approved capitalist candidates!
Bwahahaha!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday February 26 2019, @05:22PM
You sound like some kind of subversive. What's wrong with the status quo, anyway? Damned revolutionaries, always want to unquo my status.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Immerman on Tuesday February 26 2019, @05:47PM (3 children)
Indeed - if you want to ensure the rigor and quality of published research you should make it easy to publish research, along with neatly cross-referencing any published support and criticism of it. Lets make it really obvious that there's not actually anything special about being published - the important part is how well you survive criticism.
Heck, there would even still be a place for journals to curate the cream of the crop, I don't have time to read everything, but a decent journal could keep up with the latest significant publications (even harnessing their readers to suggest new papers to consider) and present those papers along with at least a summary of the current conversation around them. If I read something in Conservative Science Journal, it should be because the research was well-done and has been independently verified, whereas Cutting Edge Research Compendium is going to involve a lot more unverified claims.
There's a LOT of room for an honest journal to add value, without having a stranglehold on "legitimate" publications.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 27 2019, @03:22AM (2 children)
Not just you, NOBODY can read all the shit coming out these days. Occasionally I'll dip into the computer science abstracts and it's utterly full of ad hoc crap. Not a simplifying principle or insight to be found. Layers and layers of crud compacted into layers of crud which are then formed into more layers. That's what gets accepted nowadays. Good luck, future!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 27 2019, @04:11AM
Yep, that is why you get "cancer/depression/alzhiemers is many diseases" and such. The philosophy and methodology is actually exactly the opposite of what science is about (discovering unifying/simplifying principles/laws).
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday February 27 2019, @04:24PM
Absolutely, I just figured I'd make it personal.
As for the crap - I'm reminded of the phrase "Of course 90% of X is crap. 90% of everything is crap." And publishing potentially suffers worse than most, as the "publish or perish" mentality around academia encourages a lot of gratuitous publishing. And worst of all, publishing of duplicate or negative results seems to be a difficult and unrewarding activity, which means that some of the most important aspects of science - independent confirmation and limiting duplicate dead-end research, is actively discouraged by the current system.
(Score: 2) by jb on Wednesday February 27 2019, @06:56AM (1 child)
Depends on the field.
My understanding was that peer review in academia as an idea potentially to standardise on has been on the table since Oldenburg's famous paper, roughly half a millennium ago, although it didn't get adopted as a standard until much later: about 200 years ago for the various medical disciplines; about 100 to 150 years ago for the other sciences & some early adopters in engineering; then finally in the mid 20th century for the less scientific disciplines.
Even when peer review is not used as a formal requirement, it tends to happen naturally in many disciplines: as I understand it "letters on" the published research of scientists by their peers (in disciplines without formal requirements for peer review at the time) were published relatively common in the 18th & 19th centuries.
That was both better & worse than the current system. Better because the reviewing author put his name (and therefore staked his own reputation) on his review, which was naturally conducive to a higher quality of review; but worse because research in unpopular or noncontroversial fields often didn't get reviewed at all.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 27 2019, @01:07PM
Yes, of course people had others give feedback on their work/ideas. That is not what "peer review" means.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26 2019, @05:11PM
"This model could potentially undermine peer review, the process vital for ensuring the rigour and quality of published research. It could also increase costs of publication for researchers and funding bodies."
There are no drawbacks to the public interest. The drawbacks are strictly to the publishers who have been stealing from taxpayers all this time. Their taxpayer theft is going to come to an end. and now they want to cry about it. Cry me a river.
It's amazing how those that support IP are the same ones that are in favor of outright theft. They steal from taxpayers yet they support IP with the pretext that it protects authors and creators from 'intellectual theft'. They neglect that the purpose of IP should never be to protect against theft because infringement isn't theft and no one has a moral entitlement to patents or copyright. The purpose should only be to serve the public interest. When this is pointed out to them they then claim that IP is in the public interest and they even go so far as to say that publishers stealing from taxpayers is in the public interest. They claim that it's for the poor poor authors and creators and musicians yet it's always been big corporate conglomerates responsible for pushing these laws.
(Score: 2) by https on Tuesday February 26 2019, @05:33PM (7 children)
Citizen. The word you are looking for is citizen.
"Taxpayer" is a gateway meme for fascism. It corrupts people's reasoning about the role of government in a society.
Offended and laughing about it.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday February 26 2019, @06:51PM
Civilian -- the word police use. Because they see themselves as an invasion occupation army. Using the word Citizen might make them think the 'civilians' deserve the same rights as police.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26 2019, @07:16PM (3 children)
There is that term again. Where did you first hear it? Who is popularizing this word?
(Score: 2) by https on Tuesday February 26 2019, @09:19PM (2 children)
And here's you pretending it's not a thing like the lying liar you are.
In case you've just got out of a thirty year stretch in jail... since about the 1990s when the Prime Minister of Australia (funny, that) was trying to freak out voters about not-white immigrants and refugees. Also, you should give https://google.com/ [google.com] a try, it's really good at answering basic questions of modern life in exchange for raping your privacy.
Nobody is popularizing the word. It's in common usage because it's a common technique used by (mostly) fascists and racists. For some reason they haven't yet killed themselves all, or even simply just shut up. They really should. Also, we don't really have mass market flying cars yet. Sorry.
Offended and laughing about it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26 2019, @09:36PM (1 child)
I think it is pretty likely there is some propaganda source putting it in people's heads:
2014: 0
2015: 0
2016: 8
2017: 50
2018: 7
2019: 5
https://soylentnews.org/search.pl?tid=&query=dogwhistle&sort=3&op=comments&threshold=0&sid= [soylentnews.org]
2014: 0
2015: 0
2016: 3
2017: 2
2018: 1
2019: 3
https://soylentnews.org/search.pl?tid=&query=dogwhistling&sort=3&op=comments&threshold=0&sid= [soylentnews.org]
2014: 1
2015: 12
2016: 64
2017: 65
2018: 50
2019: 5
https://soylentnews.org/search.pl?threshold=0&query=dog+whistle&op=comments&sort=3&start=125 [soylentnews.org]
2014: 0
2015: 0
2016: 7
2017: 2
2018: 8
2019: 5
https://soylentnews.org/search.pl?tid=&query=dog+whistling&sort=3&op=comments&threshold=0&sid= [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26 2019, @09:43PM
Overall results may be easier to see.
Comments per Year:
2014: 1
2015: 12
2016: 82
2017: 119
2018: 66
2019: 18
Comments per Month:
2014: 0.08
2015: 1
2016: 6.8
2017: 9.9
2018: 5.5
2019: 9
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Tuesday February 26 2019, @08:59PM (1 child)
By that token, so is "citizen," because it discriminates against illegal immigrants.
In a just and tolerant society, "citizen" and "taxpayer" would have no meaning, just as all identity-related taxonomy would have no meaning. "Male," "female," "adult," "child," "criminal," "law-abiding," and many other such terms have been bled of all descriptive power by our post-modernist betters. We will all be assigned an ID# in a panopticon, which will be the same as every other ID#, lest anyone put on airs about having a lower-digit ID# or something.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 27 2019, @12:01AM
Legal immigrants, too.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday February 26 2019, @08:55PM (3 children)
What if I don't pay taxes in Australia?
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Tuesday February 26 2019, @10:27PM (1 child)
Without an Australian social security number, you might end up hitting the same sort of region locking that Australians routinely see when trying to access American entertainment.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Tuesday February 26 2019, @10:46PM
I wish I could convey to Australians that they are truly not missing anything when they fail to be able to access American' entertainment. I say that with all sincerity I can express through text.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 27 2019, @03:29AM
Same thing as when they don't do research in Australia.