Tobias KuhnMar 5
"The one science reform we can all agree on, but we're too cowardly to do" ·
https://www.experimental-history.com/p/the-one-science-reform-we-can-all · This is a very good post. And while we are at switching to a new system, we should re-think the concepts of "papers" and "publications". Or rather think about to what extent we should retire these vessels, and establish new forms of (fast, structured, reliable) scientific knowledge sharing.
The one science reform we can all agree on, but we're too cowardly to do

OR: the long overdue forest fire

Experimental History
Show threadRob Hooft
@tkuhn good read indeed. I find it interesting that in some cases there are mandates to publish in open access journals, but when researchers try to find a job, we still look whether they published in the journals that allow their CEO’s to drive around in cars that scientists could never afford.
Mar 6 at 6:34amMastodon for iOS
Show threadTobias KuhnMar 9
@rwwh Yes, though the positive aspect is that there is a lot of variation, meaning there is a substantial number of forward-looking institutes and groups and fields, which can serve as starting points for the future of scientific communication. For example, the Computer Science groups I was part of in the past always encouraged proper Open Access, never looked at Impact Factors, and only in a very limited and reasonable way at citation counts etc.