Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Open science: why is it so hard?

lemire.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 61 posts

Re: Open science: why is it so hard?

#11

Post by andreadallera »

oscilloscope wrote: post #3

Astronomers are incredibly dedicated to outreach. You can get data used by professional astronomers in publicly-accessible databases on the web. Here's a collection of these resources: http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/help/links.html The challenge is you have to learn a bit about the databases and visualization software to get going. Then you might need to learn some electromagnetism, relativity, and astrophysics to inter…

> Astronomers are incredibly dedicated to outreach.

I really don't want to sound overly critical - I'm sure that there is good will behind whoever made the site you linked - but that site is what represents astronomers' dedication to outreach then I don't really know what to say...

See, if researchers really wanted to let their research known to the public the efforts on their behalf would be much, much more focused than what it took to put together that site. Take your average startup as an example - they're seriously dedicated to outreach, their success depends on it - would you give them even a 1% chance of success if their website looked like that?

Re: Open science: why is it so hard?

#12

Post by andrewfelix »

kitsune_ wrote: post #10
roel_v wrote: post #5

It's not hard, it's that most researchers just don't care. Most researchers have access to all papers they need through their universities, and if they don't, most papers are only an email away. Publishing in those journals for which you need to pay (which is only a minority) is paid for by grands or the university. How many people do you know who couldn't get their papers published only because they couldn't afford…

I think you underestimate the potential interest in open science (and by extension, open data). The access limitations act as a barrier when it comes to the application of research. Yes, of course, a multi-billion dollar company with huge R&D departments will have all the subscriptions available, but what about the smaller companies and start ups? What about individual people? Also, the current system rewards incestu…

Specifically which subscriptions would be prohibitively expensive to interested parties?

Re: Open science: why is it so hard?

#13

Post by woodson »

kitsune_ wrote: post #10
roel_v wrote: post #5

It's not hard, it's that most researchers just don't care. Most researchers have access to all papers they need through their universities, and if they don't, most papers are only an email away. Publishing in those journals for which you need to pay (which is only a minority) is paid for by grands or the university. How many people do you know who couldn't get their papers published only because they couldn't afford…

I think you underestimate the potential interest in open science (and by extension, open data). The access limitations act as a barrier when it comes to the application of research. Yes, of course, a multi-billion dollar company with huge R&D departments will have all the subscriptions available, but what about the smaller companies and start ups? What about individual people? Also, the current system rewards incestu…

While I agree that sharing and opening up data etc. is important (not only to profit from it as start ups, but primarily for science itself), I don't think this 'one library' idea is practically possible. Different fields use different categorizations, and for good reasons. I don't see the need for 'one size fits all'. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to make similar data sets more compatible, but often data was collected for different reasons and by using slightly, but crucially different experimental designs.

Furthermore, research and knowledge is always changing and today's categorization might have to be broken up tomorrow.

Re: Open science: why is it so hard?

#14

Post by roel_v »

kitsune_ wrote: post #10
roel_v wrote: post #5

It's not hard, it's that most researchers just don't care. Most researchers have access to all papers they need through their universities, and if they don't, most papers are only an email away. Publishing in those journals for which you need to pay (which is only a minority) is paid for by grands or the university. How many people do you know who couldn't get their papers published only because they couldn't afford…

I think you underestimate the potential interest in open science (and by extension, open data). The access limitations act as a barrier when it comes to the application of research. Yes, of course, a multi-billion dollar company with huge R&D departments will have all the subscriptions available, but what about the smaller companies and start ups? What about individual people? Also, the current system rewards incestu…

"I think you underestimate the potential interest in open science (and by extension, open data)."

Probably. Like I said, my impression is based on personal observations only. That said, I don't really have objective reasons (of the cuff) to believe otherwise, nor do I have data (or even an idea of how one would measure it correctly). For example, I don't know anyone except from undergrads who don't know how to use their libraries who have ever been unable to get a certain paper.

Likewise, how hard is it really for a small company or individuals to get access? They can do exactly what everybody else can do - shoot the author an email asking for the paper. I've never had anybody not send it to me, once I got a hold of their current contact details, which with the web nowadays is very easy. How many people really do independent real research, completely disconnected from anybody involved with universities? They may exist but they're such corner cases that they certainly don't have the critical mass to make 'open access' a real issue.

My point is: while 'open access' is a theoretically nice idea, the practical realities are that it's just not a real problem for the vast majority of people. It's a philosophical objection to certain practices at best. Which is not enough to instill enough urgency in those whose support is needed to change things.

Re: Open science: why is it so hard?

#15

Post by roel_v »

kitsune_ wrote: post #10
roel_v wrote: post #5

It's not hard, it's that most researchers just don't care. Most researchers have access to all papers they need through their universities, and if they don't, most papers are only an email away. Publishing in those journals for which you need to pay (which is only a minority) is paid for by grands or the university. How many people do you know who couldn't get their papers published only because they couldn't afford…

I think you underestimate the potential interest in open science (and by extension, open data). The access limitations act as a barrier when it comes to the application of research. Yes, of course, a multi-billion dollar company with huge R&D departments will have all the subscriptions available, but what about the smaller companies and start ups? What about individual people? Also, the current system rewards incestu…

Also:

"Imagine one library with all the world's research and data, open, categorized, expandable, for everyone to use."

OK, I'm imagining it. Now what? Are you suggesting every Joe off the street can now write a groundbreaking paper that advances our understanding of string theory? Of course not. (Most) everybody today whose success in advancing the state of the art depends on having access to libraries already has access to one.

This is what I mean by 'philosophical idea' in my post above: yes theoretically it would be nice if everybody had access to the complete body of all research ever done. In practice, however, it wouldn't make more than a tiny shred of difference.

Re: Open science: why is it so hard?

#16

Post by jamii »

roel_v wrote: post #14
kitsune_ wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you underestimate the potential interest in open science (and by extension, open data). The access limitations act as a barrier when it comes to the application of research. Yes, of course, a multi-billion dollar company with huge R&D departments will have all the subscriptions available, but what about the smaller companies and start ups? What about individual people? Also, the current system rewards incestu…

"I think you underestimate the potential interest in open science (and by extension, open data)." Probably. Like I said, my impression is based on personal observations only. That said, I don't really have objective reasons (of the cuff) to believe otherwise, nor do I have data (or even an idea of how one would measure it correctly). For example, I don't know anyone except from undergrads who don't know how to use th…

A good fraction of the freelance work I have done has required looking up papers (eg the current implementation for https://github.com/jamii/texsearch is based on a bioinformatics paper).

It's fine when you only want a single specific paper but when I'm often looking for a solution to a problem I don't know the name of which means scanning through a couple of hundred papers an hour to see which ones are relevant.

Re: Open science: why is it so hard?

#17

Post by route66 »

roel_v wrote: post #14
kitsune_ wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you underestimate the potential interest in open science (and by extension, open data). The access limitations act as a barrier when it comes to the application of research. Yes, of course, a multi-billion dollar company with huge R&D departments will have all the subscriptions available, but what about the smaller companies and start ups? What about individual people? Also, the current system rewards incestu…

"I think you underestimate the potential interest in open science (and by extension, open data)." Probably. Like I said, my impression is based on personal observations only. That said, I don't really have objective reasons (of the cuff) to believe otherwise, nor do I have data (or even an idea of how one would measure it correctly). For example, I don't know anyone except from undergrads who don't know how to use th…

> My point is: while ... theoretically nice idea, the practical realities are ... not a real problem for the vast majority of people. ... philosophical objection ... best. Which is not enough to instill enough urgency in those whose support is needed to change things.

What you basically say is : "It is the way it is because that is how things are. period"

Do you agree with the complaint? Or do you think it's useless and the complainer should do somethign else instead? Or do you say things are good the way you are? I do generally not understand the point of comments which seem to say "It is like this and now shut up", which you do not say explicitely, but phrasings like , "philosophical objection at best" indicate that you think of this as whining at worst.

I care about easy access to scientific studies for non-PhD's.

Re: Open science: why is it so hard?

#18

Post by tincholio »

roel_v wrote: post #5

It's not hard, it's that most researchers just don't care. Most researchers have access to all papers they need through their universities, and if they don't, most papers are only an email away. Publishing in those journals for which you need to pay (which is only a minority) is paid for by grands or the university. How many people do you know who couldn't get their papers published only because they couldn't afford…

I believe that more than the fact that researchers don't care, is that researchers are evaluated largely by their publications, both on number and on 'impact'. I just so happens, that the journals with most impact are those that have been long established. These have a track record, a respectable editorial board, and thus researchers try to save up their best work for these types of publications. Disrupting this cycle would require new open journals (or conferences with relaxed copyright policies for their proceedings, especially in the CompSci field) with high quality standards and a respected editorial board. The problem is that there is no real incentive for this to happen, and a strong incentive to publish in the well-respected venues. Hence, the status quo persists...

Re: Open science: why is it so hard?

#19

Post by Radim »

jamii wrote: post #16
roel_v wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I think you underestimate the potential interest in open science (and by extension, open data)." Probably. Like I said, my impression is based on personal observations only. That said, I don't really have objective reasons (of the cuff) to believe otherwise, nor do I have data (or even an idea of how one would measure it correctly). For example, I don't know anyone except from undergrads who don't know how to use th…

A good fraction of the freelance work I have done has required looking up papers (eg the current implementation for https://github.com/jamii/texsearch is based on a bioinformatics paper). It's fine when you only want a single specific paper but when I'm often looking for a solution to a problem I don't know the name of which means scanning through a couple of hundred papers an hour to see which ones are relevant.

But paper abstracts are always free (even with paid journals).

If you have to scan random papers to find a solution to a problem you cannot name, I fear for your well-being :-)

Post reply on HN