BrikoXBluesky now platform of choice for science community
MihiesBut why? Of all people I’d expect scientists to have learned the lesson of Twitter and embrace fediverse 🤷♂️
Why is all of scientific research locked behind paywalls instead of some open source scientist-built system?
Because like most people, they’re just trying to get by with the least amount of effort. Structural change is hard and risky.
Why is all of scientific research locked behind paywalls
Because to advance in your field you need to publish your research in peer reviewed publications and the publishers need to monetise the content to keep publishing.
It sucks, it works.
It certainly doesn’t work, that’s why there exists stuff like arXiv and SciHub
ArXiv is just a pre—print, and SciHub is a shadow library.
If you want an academic career, have your discoveries recognised, and stay in funded research, you must publish on peer reviewed traditional channels. Like it or not.
Of course you can still do research alone and publish on your website, but hardly anyone would take you seriously.
That’s exactly the point. If you want to be a researcher right now you have to play their game. You have to publish papers even if you don’t have anything. So people publish bullshit, use chatGPT, force their name on papers they haven’t contributed and so on.
Meanwhile the science journals get paid by everyone and pay no one.
So people publish bullshit, use chatGPT, force their name on papers they haven’t contributed and so on.
Assuming that you pass the peer review, then nobody will reference your paper in other papers. It will become obvious that your research is not interesting or that you are just slapping your name on papers as a supervisor.
Lol, it shows you don’t know how things really work. New bullshit cites old bullshit, it’s all a game of pretending. You can check the statistics of fraudulent papers and that is just takes into account the most obvious ones.
A good example of this is the Amyloid Hypothesis for dementia. All the papers that “proved” this concept have been retracted, but after 8 years. Good work showed that looking at amyloid load in random brains showed no correlation close to 20 years ago, but amyloidists begat more amyloidists, until finally there was a drug that reduces amyloid by 30%. All it did was cause brain bleeds, deaths and no benefit, but the FDA approved it anyway. MDs will still explain how it really “should” work. It was all a cabal of US scientists who dominated all symposia, only inviting speakers who were in their cabal.
Meanwhile, genetic forms of neurodegeneration are highlighting defects in DNA damage repair. So, 25 years and billions wasted while there still are no treatments.