The War to Free Science • Hacker News Board

Re: The War to Free Science

#31

Post by dang » Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 1:50 AM UTC

germanlee wrote: post #28

0815test wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is stuff that's severely misrepresented by the alt-right. Yes, there are statistical variations in IQ and criminality across social groups. No, there's no consensus whatsoever that all or even most of that is due to any sort of "genetic factor", and the plausible contribution of something like that is well within the "too small to matter" range! Besides, these distributions are such that they can only ever matte…

Not a serious attempt at social debate? Yes, calling 99.9999% of the people attempting a serious social debate "white supremacist" is why we can't have a serious debate. People like you are why we can't have a serious discussion about anything nowadays. You instantly try to shut down any discussion by "alt-right" or "white supremacist" attacks. Unfortunately for you, I'm not white or a white supremacist, so your ad h…

Can you please not use HN for ideological battle? We ban accounts that do that, because it destroys thoughtful discussion and curiosity. Those are what we want here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: The War to Free Science

#32

Post by dang » Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 1:55 AM UTC

jmbi wrote: post #8

I'm glad that Vox is interested in Free Science while at the same time blatantly ignoring the thoroughly researched race-IQ connection [1][2]. [1]: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/27/15695060/s... [2]: https://www.vox.com/2018/4/10/17182692/bell-curve-charles-mu...

Starting ideological flamewars like this will get you banned here. In fact, I just banned your account. But then I saw that you've posted interesting comments on other topics, so unbanned you. Please don't use HN for political or ideological battle, though.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: The War to Free Science

#33

Post by tagh » Wed, Jun 12, 2019, 2:43 AM UTC

>But there’s a big thing getting in the way of a revolution: prestige-obsessed scientists who continue to publish in closed-access journals.

That's blaming the victim. It's not the academics who are prestige-obsessed, it's the universities that assess and rank their staff by publication counts within such journals. Most academics I know just want to keep their job.

Re: The War to Free Science

#34

Post by sci-hub » Thu, Jun 13, 2019, 7:46 AM UTC

Vinnl wrote: post #13

sci-hub wrote: post #4

> One big reason: pirates, including Kazakh neuroscientist Alexandra Elbakyan. Her (illegal) website Sci-Hub sees more than 500,000 visitors daily, and hosts more than 50 million academic papers. Definitely citation needed on the “(illegal)”. FYI, this site is very useful and keeps track of the ever-changing sci hub links: https://sci-hub.now.sh/

Ha, that's interesting - the concept and execution seems almost identical a the project I shared [1] here more than a year ago: https://whereisscihub.now.sh/ [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16591962

Looks like it’s based on the same code?

Re: The War to Free Science

#35

Post by nrf1 » Wed, Jun 19, 2019, 3:01 AM UTC

detaro wrote: post #29

nrf1 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously. This issue could be solved over night if the USFG (NSF/NIH/DoD) stepped in and said "all publications supported by our grants must be published open access and we'll pay no more than $N/page in publishing fees."

You probably need to explicitly ban publishing in publications with publishing fees, otherwise money from other sources will be used to pad out the difference.

No, that's letting the perfect be the enemy of good enough.

Outright bans make open access harder; editing+publishing with reasonable quality and archival levels of access guarantees can be cheap but it's never free.

Just limit it to a very reasonable $/page. Even upper bounding it at some obscene amount like $10/page would be a vast improvement and a completely trivial expense (you don't want to know what plane tickets to IJCAI cost this year...)

To clarify, I'm saying any research funded by the NSF should have this requirement imposed on all publications regardless of funding source. I.e., DON'T say "NSF $ can't be used for more than $X in publication fees", say "NSF $ can't be used AT ALL if you ever pay more than $X in publication fees".