21–30 of 96 posts
The obvious global benefits may also be driving cooperation and sharing in other fields, including (and perhaps especially) publishing. Closed data has no beneficiaries except commerce - it's being seen as a dead model. Finally.
"Pay journals for “gold” open access, which makes a paper free to read on the publisher’s website, or choose the “green” route, which allows them to deposit a near-final version of the paper on a public repository, after a waiting period of up to 1 year." yeah, that kind of free huh. Sick.
> But starting in April 2022, that yearlong delay will no longer be permitted: Researchers choosing green open access must deposit the paper immediately when it is published.
Slowly and almost imperceptibly if you look at it day-to-day, public research repositories like arxiv and biorxiv, along with public code repositories like github and gitlab, are becoming or maybe already are the world's most important academic "journals." All research and code posted on them gets a quick once-over; good work gets the attention it deserves; bad work is quickly ignored. Reviews take place over the Int…
If you want to have to read 5,000 poorly written error riddled works to find a single gem I guess it's okay. Unfortunately, I'm not an immortal
Slowly and almost imperceptibly if you look at it day-to-day, public research repositories like arxiv and biorxiv, along with public code repositories like github and gitlab, are becoming or maybe already are the world's most important academic "journals." All research and code posted on them gets a quick once-over; good work gets the attention it deserves; bad work is quickly ignored. Reviews take place over the Int…
If you want to have to read 5,000 poorly written error riddled works to find a single gem I guess it's okay. Unfortunately, I'm not an immortal
"Pay journals for “gold” open access, which makes a paper free to read on the publisher’s website, or choose the “green” route, which allows them to deposit a near-final version of the paper on a public repository, after a waiting period of up to 1 year." yeah, that kind of free huh. Sick.
Slowly and almost imperceptibly if you look at it day-to-day, public research repositories like arxiv and biorxiv, along with public code repositories like github and gitlab, are becoming or maybe already are the world's most important academic "journals." All research and code posted on them gets a quick once-over; good work gets the attention it deserves; bad work is quickly ignored. Reviews take place over the Int…
If you want to have to read 5,000 poorly written error riddled works to find a single gem I guess it's okay. Unfortunately, I'm not an immortal
Slowly and almost imperceptibly if you look at it day-to-day, public research repositories like arxiv and biorxiv, along with public code repositories like github and gitlab, are becoming or maybe already are the world's most important academic "journals." All research and code posted on them gets a quick once-over; good work gets the attention it deserves; bad work is quickly ignored. Reviews take place over the Int…
If you want to have to read 5,000 poorly written error riddled works to find a single gem I guess it's okay. Unfortunately, I'm not an immortal
Now we need to get the Nobel Committee to say they will only read open source papers - this is a valid option as the paywalls have denied most of the world's 'second tier' countries access for their scientists (to say nothing of interested science readers wherever they are) so going open source will only add to the common pool of knowledge
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is it legal for the author to send you a copy (asking as an author)
They usually send you a 'pre-print' which (in their opinion - I'm not a lawyer) is not subject to the same copyright as the final reversion which was sent to review.