41–50 of 135 posts
Funny that some of the pharmaceutical research is 60-70% public money yet the results are IPd by the company.
60-70% public money How are you judging the percentage there? Are you including the cost of drugs that don't get approved?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK50972/
I guess this is different country by country.
Personally, I think civil disobedience is more effective at changing the status quo than e-mail campaigns, although they can help to increase awareness. What I would really like to see is a big institution / university take a stand and build something like Scihub to provide free and unlimited access to all of their own papers, even those that are stuck behind a paywall for "historic" reasons. It would be interesting…
* Cut 25% of your journal subscriptions to the worst offenders and keep cutting every year with some smaller percent.
* Publicly recommend to all scientific boards that the hiring process should judge applicants by the merit of their publications, not by their journal's ranking.
* Promote open-access submissions by your researchers: a small monetary bonus would probably suffice.
* Lobby your government to drop funding allocation based on journal rankings. Instead, promote some sort of combination of citation count [1] and expert consensus.
[1]: I realize currently the citation count is correlated with journal ranking (because the impact factor is computed by an average citation count) but it does not mean it is a bad measure. Plus of course, a comment on HN should not be the right place to design a really fair publication metric.
Personally, I think civil disobedience is more effective at changing the status quo than e-mail campaigns, although they can help to increase awareness. What I would really like to see is a big institution / university take a stand and build something like Scihub to provide free and unlimited access to all of their own papers, even those that are stuck behind a paywall for "historic" reasons. It would be interesting…
Email campaigns and signing petitions is much easier to do as people don't need to get up off their assess but still get to feel like they've helped.
I can see where there should be exceptions like in cases of national security or maybe if minors are involved, but otherwise I think public stuff should actually be public.
If researchers would stop voluntarily sending their papers to private, for-profit journals then this wouldn't be an issue.
If employers and funding agencies would stop using publications in private, for-profit journals to evaluate whether researchers should get to keep their job or have their grants renewed, then this wouldn't be an issue.
Personally, I think civil disobedience is more effective at changing the status quo than e-mail campaigns, although they can help to increase awareness. What I would really like to see is a big institution / university take a stand and build something like Scihub to provide free and unlimited access to all of their own papers, even those that are stuck behind a paywall for "historic" reasons. It would be interesting…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They still exist because companies lobby to keep them alive. I don't hate the player I simply observe how the game is played.
True. Point is I think the government should be the focus here, not the players who take advantage of the rules they create.
If researchers would stop voluntarily sending their papers to private, for-profit journals then this wouldn't be an issue.
If employers and funding agencies would stop using publications in private, for-profit journals to evaluate whether researchers should get to keep their job or have their grants renewed, then this wouldn't be an issue.
If researchers would stop voluntarily sending their papers to private, for-profit journals then this wouldn't be an issue.
If employers and funding agencies would stop using publications in private, for-profit journals to evaluate whether researchers should get to keep their job or have their grants renewed, then this wouldn't be an issue.