Imagine solving quantum gravity and not knowing how to publish and not wanting to pay a fee to share it 🙃🫠
@donm5354
3 сағат бұрын
BAMBOO SCIENCE is a highly underrated area of SCIENCE !
@lipsterman1
3 сағат бұрын
Did someone figure a way to remove invasive bamboo without killing my oak tree? How much do I have to pay?
@fburton8
2 сағат бұрын
I'm bamboozled by the whole topic.
@kingofspades1776
3 сағат бұрын
There is no way scientists are doing anywhere near as much peer review as they're doing publishing. Literally everybody else is telling me there is a crisis where good sounding nonsense is getting published, actually influencing society's behavior in some cases, but nobody has enough incentive to attempt to reproduce the experiments because it doesn't make your career or gain any prestige to do so. But the few times any large effort is made to reproduce the results of various papers, the people doing it come back and say if what they found is representative, there is a mass of junk papers leading everybody astray. There needs to be financial incentive to prune scientific literature, so we know what's good and what's bad. I don't know how we get it, but we need it.
@TheDigger76
2 сағат бұрын
I agree with you that there is too much junk science, but peer review and replication studies are two very different things. We as reviewers are never asked to do the research again or reproduce the results, we are asked to check for inconsistencies, relevance, soundness, etc. In some cases, we get the data and can play with it to check some of the analyses, but thats an exception. Replication comes further down in the scientific process.
@PavloPravdiukov
2 сағат бұрын
@kingofspades1776 peer review does not include reproduction of paper's results. This requires separate research and, in some cases, experiments.
@kingofspades1776
2 сағат бұрын
@@TheDigger76 Understood. I think my point still stands though. Enough isn't being done to prune scientific literature, and if Sabine's previous videos are anything to go by, the quality of peer review is often low enough to let junk through that could be caught just by looking at it. If it's just busy work people probably won't pay attention and just give out check marks so they can move on with other things. Science is a tool to make life better and our system is running poorly, which is leading to stagnation.
@darkwingscooter9637
2 сағат бұрын
@@TheDigger76 Unfortunately, academia has done almost nothing to disabuse the public of the notion that peer review is functionally equivalent to replication. People ask "was that result peer reviewed?" and reject it if it wasn't. They will accept peer reviewed results that don't replicate, and reject replicable results that can't pass peer review for conflicting with established dogma.
@magicpigfpv6989
2 сағат бұрын
Wait to publish until 3 independent researchers verify.
@tonywagner4836
3 сағат бұрын
The basic business model is that the journals want free content, free labor, exclusivity, and then sell their product for a profit. One obvious solution is for there to be a non-profit journal publlsher that operates on a cost basis.
@ciro_costa
3 сағат бұрын
Exactly. Almost as if essential human activity shouldn't be for profit. Be it medicine, transportation, housing or science.
@PavloPravdiukov
2 сағат бұрын
@@tonywagner4836 cool idea! Can you start this trend?
As a bamboo scientist i feel personally attacked! Plastinated bamboo fillers are the future of building construction. When you have stronger building material thats eco-friendly, youll rue thr day you mocked us!!!!
@waveofmist
2 сағат бұрын
Reviewers of Sabine's bucket list have long been mystified by the cryptic entry "Piss off the bamboo people." What is a bamboo person, and what did they do to provoke her ire? Today, half of the mystery is solved.
@blehblahov7398
2 сағат бұрын
hmmmm that actually sounds pretty cool!! Now I want to learn more about bamboos
@unnamed47
2 сағат бұрын
Looking at your channel, your opinion seems worthless to me.
@jamestickle3070
2 сағат бұрын
With the rise of ‘hoax’ papers that essentially mock the entire process it is clear that many peer reviewed articles are just rubber stamped. If the journals had to pay for the reviewer’s time they could assert some higher standards and quality control so they got their money’s worth.
@Grauenwolf
3 сағат бұрын
It doesn't have to be a formal agreement to be illegal collusion. In fact, most collusion agreements are not formal because they know what they are doing is illegal. This case is unusual in that they admit to what they are doing up front.
@JimJWalker
2 сағат бұрын
I was doing some research this summer and wanted to read a JSTOR available article written in the 1950s. The journal itself is no longer available. They wanted $25 to read a 70+ year old paper. Are the authors still alive? How am I even to know the article can help? SMH.
@billygamer3941
2 сағат бұрын
Finally! This whole academic publication scam needs to stop. We, the tax payer, support many researchers (including the grad students and post-docs) and, yet, we cannot access the published papers without paying.
@parrotraiser6541
3 сағат бұрын
Isn't the problem that journals contribute to the noise of "journeyman science", the proliferation of papers that really contribute nothing to human knowledge. They just add boxtops to the authors' tenure applications? There are too many schools that provide make-work positions for people who could be more useful working in reality.
@stoferb876
2 сағат бұрын
One would think the universities taking care of the whole scientific publishing themselves would be the way to go. That would be some real work for all these people to do.
@arnoldkotlyarevsky383
2 сағат бұрын
This is why the solution is to publicly fund all science and stop trying to use capitalism for things it wasnt designed to solve. Bamboo science is probably really important to the tens of millions of people who benefit from growing and using bamboo for food, for furniture, for structural support, for clothing, for handicrafts, etc. just because the journal is not profitable doesn't mean it has no purpose.
@eitherrideordie
3 сағат бұрын
I get where your coming from. But the key for me is i think people are just fed up with these companies having all the power, all the negotiation, and making bank off all the hardwork of researchers for essentially a platform. Not saying i have a solution, but currently things are out of balance and needs to change.
@carlm7764
2 сағат бұрын
Things are out of balance for sure , great way of putting it
@RobertJWaid
2 сағат бұрын
Regardless of the lawsuit, the whole ecosystem is in jeopardy. Journals are following magazines and newspapers which aren’t paying contributors and consumers who don’t want to pay publishers. Everything can’t be free. The business model that works today is digital publishing behind a small paywall which allows for targeted advertising.
@id3alpolitik
2 сағат бұрын
I suppose they'll just have to make do with advertising money and so double down on selling their readers (the product) to their advertisers (their customers). That should go well - just look at news media and social media. 🤦 That said, the current system is untenable, and it really isn't fair that taxpayers who funded much of this research should have to pay for it again to read it. (We're already charged exorbitantly for drugs that started out with NIH funding.) So perhaps a compromise where every public institution gets free access - for example, every library, big and small, across the US for US taxpayer-funded studies.
@dcxplant
2 сағат бұрын
If the labor is free, the product should be free. Earning a profit on free labor is the issue imo. What good is the research paper if it is bought and paid for? Plenty of think tanks employ academics to write papers to support a predetermined idea/outcome their employer is seeking to prove. If university academics are to be paid for their papers, where is the objectivity?? How valid would the work product be??
@densonsmith2
11 сағат бұрын
Just because research is happening at a public university does not necessarily mean it is being financed by taxes. I think the main question is "what do the publishers do to earn money in todays world?" Journals started up without them and we don't need them to print things on paper anymore. Publishing is near enough to free on the web that the editor could just pay it out of their pocket as part of the price they pay to be an editor.
@SabineHossenfelder
10 сағат бұрын
It takes people and hardware (or cloud space) to maintain a database. It also takes people to manage the entire publishing process, from finding peer reviewers to making publishing decisions to getting the thing indexed online etc. And that doesn't even touch on the question of what you do with actual data, or how you make it searchable and indexable. Someone has to do all that. There have been many people who had the idea of "hey let's just set up an online journal at basically no cost" and they came to find out that, well, it actually takes a lot of work and that takes money and quite some of these journals just withered away or were taken up by commercial publishers. The brief summary is that a lot of the criticism from academics on scientific publishers comes from them not knowing what publishers do in the first place.
@MrDubyadee1
3 сағат бұрын
Maybe not taxes, but taxes and tuition and fees that supply the universities budget plus grant money the vast majority comes from government sources. The private sector doesn't support much university research as they are only interested in research that can advance their business interests.
@tarstarkusz
3 сағат бұрын
BULLSHIT. The entire thing is tax funded bottom to top. 90 plus percent of these "studies" should never have been done in the first place. We need to move science back into the private sector. Before about the mid 60s, nearly all useful science was done in the private sector.
@tarstarkusz
3 сағат бұрын
BULLSHIT. The entire thing is state funded bottom to top. 90 plus percent of this published nonsense should never have been done in the first place. We need to move science back into the private sector. Before about the mid 60s, nearly all useful science was done in the private sector.
@eriktempelman2097
3 сағат бұрын
@@SabineHossenfelderall fair points. But the current system is totally out of balance. Especially for universities from poor countries ...
@nelsonclub7722
3 сағат бұрын
Imagine being called as a juror on this case
@lexer_
3 сағат бұрын
Hot topic, I think publishers have a misaligned inscentive and are generally less aligned with the interest of scientists and science in general. Having university-run publishers and magazins doesn't inscentivise skimming as much private profits off the subsidies in the same malicious and exploitative ways. At least if they are properly set up and regulated. The way things currently work there is no way you can improve the system because you are working against competitive capitalist market forces. Removing scientific publication from this system will of course lead to inherent overheads and inefficiencies but I think that is better than misaligned exploitation of scientists. Also it would make it possible for people that are not employed by universities but still worked on a significant contribution to science to publish the work if it is of high enough quality and get paid for their work like a contractor.
@Thomas-gk42
3 сағат бұрын
Sounds reasonable, thanks
@gregreynolds5686
3 сағат бұрын
To do peer review properly is hugely time consuming (it can take days) - I've done it twice and decided it wasn't worth my time. I suspect the current model is definitely on its last legs...
@lanszoominternet
2 сағат бұрын
Although it is not part of the legal filing, there is Catch 22 in this for faculty. Professional advancement in academia is generally linked to the publication of research papers. Yet not all universities have their own publishing houses to ensure that faculty have a venue to publish in. Thus if faculty want to advance they have to sign on to the peer review process. This indirectly ties faculty income to doing unpaid work for both the university and the publisher. Maybe the solution is for publishing houses to hire and pay retired faculty to do the reviewing.
@barryinsabah
2 сағат бұрын
Not to forget that you pay for open access, nature journals charge, many thousands of US dollars. For scientists such as myself struggle as I don't get paid a salary.
@ciro_costa
3 сағат бұрын
We should be on the side of researchers. Never the publishers.
@osmosisjones4912
2 сағат бұрын
You know reliable data and credible sources often contradicts. From climate to chemistry and especially economics.
@GunmadMadman
2 сағат бұрын
So they can?
@stischer47
2 сағат бұрын
Unfortunately, having been a reviewer, it's amazing how much crap actually gets published. The scandals at Harvard are symptomatic.
@analogbunny
2 сағат бұрын
If you get a government grant, you've already been paid to generate research for the public interest. If governments barred researchers from publishing in for-profit journals, that would fix things right quick.
@hovant6666
3 сағат бұрын
Like you say, I think that would just push things further in the direction of, "if it cannot be immediately commercialised for massive profit, don't fund it"
@eriktempelman2097
3 сағат бұрын
Excellent development. The current scientific publishing system is totally wrong on so many levels.
@wagdog2
2 сағат бұрын
Because all of mankind benefits from the availability of peer-reviewed information, it should be freely available, not sold. The work of scientists should include research, teaching, writing papers, and reviewing the work of others. The profit motive, competition, secrecy, and exclusivity are all hindrances to advances in science. Market forces should not guide research or the distribution of knowledge.
@Thomas-gk42
11 сағат бұрын
Bamboo-science sounds interesting, perhaps I´ll write a paper about it🌱 Seriously, who even decides which paper is peer reviewed by whom, and what happens, if a scientific publication doesn´t find a peer reviewer at all?
@SabineHossenfelder
10 сағат бұрын
Happened to a friend of mine that the journal couldn't find a reviewer. They rejected the paper. Normally the way it works is that publishers have a database of potential reviewers sorted by keywords. If you sign up with them, they ask you to specify your expertise. They also usually look at the references. Then they'll invite reviewers, and if one declines, they'll go to the next etc. Some people take a long time to decline or they no longer check their email at all. This is why it can take months to even find a reviewer. The more niche the topic, the longer it may take.
@Thomas-gk42
9 сағат бұрын
@@SabineHossenfelderThanks for your explanation.😊
@Meditations2024
2 сағат бұрын
Imagine pretending you're not getting paid to publish and review papers when that's literally what you get paid to do for a living... Mostly by taxpayers and college student's absurdly inflated tuitions....
@mskiptr
2 сағат бұрын
Why do we need to publish research in journals? Basically every single university has a website and hosting PDFs is really not that expensive. Why not publish everything online and be done with this mess? (Ye, ye, I know that's not how you get funding.)
@AdvantestInc
3 сағат бұрын
The critique on unpaid peer reviews really hit home. It’s surprising how much of the academic system relies on free labor. This lawsuit could lead to meaningful changes in how we value scholarly work.
@hugegamer5988
3 сағат бұрын
Unpaid reviewers who, between working on their PhD, writing papers, doing lab work, so it’s on the top of 75hours to do the additional 5-10 hours a week doing peer review.
@aniksamiurrahman6365
3 сағат бұрын
But, now I sense, peer review will get even more rigged. Also, the cost will be directly handed to the reader.
@mmast7554
3 сағат бұрын
@@aniksamiurrahman6365 It's already rigged if you po your peers you will never get a review
@OneAmongBillions
2 сағат бұрын
Non-profit universities should replace for profit publishers.
@drgetwrekt869
3 сағат бұрын
the solution is simply maintaining open access journals at labs and publishing on them. easy. why do we need to pay?
@andrayellowpenguin
3 сағат бұрын
Haha, all i wanna say is "FINALLY"!!! 😅 The system needs to be reviewed but I'm not sure of the solution. I've never felt it was ok to pay so much for the journals but on the other hand keeping the info free would be very difficult unless the government subsidises it or something. And since now basically the only way to get funded is to publish... It's a vicious cycle
@Grauenwolf
3 сағат бұрын
I would like to see a breakdown of those costs. How much administrative overhead are we really talking about to run a website that lets you submit papers and review them?
@dougsheldon5560
2 сағат бұрын
I kind of think of you, S, as having an ankle-enraged Chihuahua relationship, with journals😂
@pedrowoolson4273
2 сағат бұрын
ROTFL, peers in Canada are earning 6 figures mostly in government money. Talk to me about unpaid interns and I'll back your play all day long. Total BS practice propagated by people who think "I paid my dues". I can tell you without any reservation that the dues that I paid were cheaper than the dues kids pay today. There is way too much higher education (which comes with debt) involved in every job when on the job training used to be the norm
@PavloPravdiukov
9 сағат бұрын
If the author pays the reviewer, even indirectly, this could create a certain bias.
@Thomas-gk42
9 сағат бұрын
That´s right!
@deadasfak
3 сағат бұрын
Are you subscribed to advances in bamboo science?
@orangegummugger1871
2 сағат бұрын
@@deadasfak BAM! Boo!!!😂
@lamarozzo
2 сағат бұрын
that's nonsense, it should be the journal, not the author who pays for the review
@Thomas-gk42
2 сағат бұрын
@@lamarozzo Wouldn´t that be, what the first commenter called "indirectly"?
@jeffneuhaus8475
2 сағат бұрын
I read somewhere (not sure if it's true because I haven't tried it yet) that you can email the author of a paper directly and they will generally be happy to email you a copy for free. They're legally allowed to do that and are usually happy to share their hard work.
@stevewall7044
2 сағат бұрын
Illogical to expect reviewship to multiply.
@shawnbooth3696
2 сағат бұрын
Not being paid for reviews, I think, leads to a better chance of having a non-biased, honest review of a submitted manuscript. At the worst a competing academic could stifle a worthwhile paper through the review process, at the best the reviewer can make good suggestions to improve it.
@xmurisfurderx
2 сағат бұрын
The payment here is a red herring, most law doesn't really cover scientific publishing so in order to fight the publishers they used the cartel angle
@ShadowOfMoria
2 сағат бұрын
Yeah well the current system is crazy and it definitely does not deliver true peer review. The amount of things we are supposed to do that doesn't directly link into our already low salary is crazy. In my experience 1/3 of the reviewers didn't even read the paper and half of them didn't understand the topic. How are studies going to be evaluated scientifically if they cant find people from the same field to evaluate them or the reviewers dont have the time or motivation to read the article properly because it doesnt bring them any money?
@AdamReese-wl1fz
2 сағат бұрын
Sounds like a secret exclusive type of thing. It's not science. It's love of something more than the Creator, our maker. Science is basically darkmagic at this point all the numerology and shapes and what not, that's been the core of darkmagic for over 1000 years.
@atomicvinylreviews3420
2 сағат бұрын
Honestly that bamboo science one sounds pretty cool
@catserver8577
2 сағат бұрын
I think that once we go from scientists doing science, to other scientists proving or disproving the science, to for profit science publications controlling it all there is always going to be an issue. Scientific research would be best done as a valuable service to humanity, and money should not be the top issue with it. All countries should have a responsibility to include scientific research in it's budget, and have redundant checking and rechecking that brings accurate knowledge to the forefront in a timely manner. JMO.
@fredred8298
3 сағат бұрын
I have fond memories as a child of Mom reading to me from, "Advances in Bamboo Science. "
@robbannstrom
2 сағат бұрын
You should check out the Bamboo Science Library Archive in the Bamboo Museum - definitely worth a visit.
@SteveRowe
2 сағат бұрын
I would love to see research to become non-profit, but don't think it will happen. I think the publishers will maybe pay a fine and keep doing what they are doing, just like Apple, Microsoft, Google, etc. do when sued for anti-trust things.
@ascaniosobrero
2 сағат бұрын
Many authors and reviewers are not from academia but from private companies (thousands companies), which also most of the times subscribe to journals. No public taxes are there, and this is not part of a paid academic job. I myself have been publishing and reviewing papers for more than 40 years.
@lamarozzo
2 сағат бұрын
Sabine you make it sound like most journals are not profitable, while in reality the profit margins of major publishers are huge (Elsevier had a 37% margin in 2017, higher than Apple, Google and Amazon). You also said that the salary of scientists covers their editorial work, but that's not true (there's no such thing in a scientist's contract). The truth is that the private sector is profiting from work done by scientists by reselling them their own work. I'm surprised you seem to think that it's all well and good.
@xmurisfurderx
2 сағат бұрын
This woman has rather small minded naive ideas on how the world works
@datamatters8
2 сағат бұрын
The publishers can license the content to AI builders. Bamboo science might not be a popular item but I think medical research or engineering journals will be. Should the researchers get a cut?
@Kohlenstoffkarbid
2 сағат бұрын
Im interested in many science topics and i really dislike to have to pay 19 $ for a two page PDF from 1967. When i want to know all about a certain mineral, it's composition on it's localities and it's properties i would have to pay often more than 100 $ for 3-5 PDFs which are hidden behind a paywall. And im doing it for my own curiosity. Of course i don't pay a dime for that. I gladly spend lots of money for books but not for greedy publishers which don't pay the actual writers. I can hardly imagine, how much real scientists would have to spend to just find out if they got something new or not. Science is expensive but in most cases the scientists will never see a dime. The publishers are driven by pure greed.
@darkwingscooter9637
2 сағат бұрын
This should have happened 50 years ago, but (sadly) it doesn't appear to be a very good suit.
@sergey9986
2 сағат бұрын
I find PLoS policy is the most appealing one.
@hens_ledan
3 сағат бұрын
Very little research in my field is funded by the public. That's true of most of the humanities.
@mmast7554
3 сағат бұрын
I have 1 statement Einstein Madem Curie etc would have never published anything because of the system today... ? You said you put your papers on a sever is that publicly accessible?
@xmurisfurderx
2 сағат бұрын
She's referring to arXiv which allows for preprint moderation, but crucially does not do actual peer review
@freedomwriter1995
2 сағат бұрын
Imagine wanting to find information from one of these journals but it's stuck behind a hundred dollar paywall for each individual journal.
@elasticharmony
2 сағат бұрын
I read these papers and they are much more useful than the information on a business (profit) level of resource. But, yes they should all be free. What the cost is compared to usefulness is no question, the value of money that is much less. What could happen is corporations buying the scholar and he works for them making it more hard, these problems are due to the values of the federal government today in the US and their use of money and sanctions as an easy tool of governance. Information is power much better access than obstacles. We'll have to return to Descartes who claimed he could by induction understand anything with a short description.
@frederickmueller7916
2 сағат бұрын
And everyone just downloads the papers on scihub. Something needs to change anyways. Knowledge shouldnt be paywalled and especially not when the taxpayer finances the research.
@michaelleue7594
2 сағат бұрын
The fundamental problem here is that money is a poor motivator for quality, organized research systems. Disorganization makes exploits possible, and adding more money into a disorganized system just gives more people a reason to leverage those exploits. So we get authors who pretend to write, and publishers who pretend to review, and buyers who pretend to care, all because there's financial incentive to do so. This is a problem with the ethical rules around the research ecosystem failing to adequately address the amount of money being fed into it.
@faulypi
2 сағат бұрын
In summary: Publishers don't make money on journals and authors can't accept that publishers need to minimize costs. Definitely worth publishing a paper on the economics of scientific publishing.
@ciro_costa
2 сағат бұрын
So do the publishers put their money into researcher's salaries?
@amadeusgutlieb933
4 сағат бұрын
In the United States, or at least in my great State of California, PEER REVIEWS BY THE MEDICAL BOARD GOES AT THE RATE OF $200/HOUR!!!!
@John-zz6fz
2 сағат бұрын
That's specific to California which has a state law that closely regulates unpaid work and restricts volunteer activities outside of governmental and non-profit activities.
@rongenise7006
2 сағат бұрын
Let me try a slightly inadequate analogy. Writers shouldn’t get paid for their work unless they also edit other people’s writings. Is that about right?
@xmurisfurderx
2 сағат бұрын
Writers will never have their work published unless they do extensive editing for free
@JosephCoco
2 сағат бұрын
I agree the mix of public and private is the issue. Not paying scientists for peer review of a for-profit journal doesn't feel right. It's very rent-seeker. I think it makes sense to force journals to pay for services and to allow governments to explicitly subsidize unprofitable journals.
@BSAT10
2 сағат бұрын
The Lancet was taken over by Elsevier and the whole ethos changed
@ayoCC
2 сағат бұрын
I'd love to see a deep dive video about the realities
@coldshadow4177
2 сағат бұрын
I very much enjoyed the macroeconomic analyses in this video.
@thirstyCactus
2 сағат бұрын
Probably good to keep pier review on a volunteer basis. "Hey! Where are all those papers I paid you to review? They didn't fail, did they? I didn't think so."
@rickmorty5215
2 сағат бұрын
This system is more complicated than the actual scientific research it is meant to be a custodian of.👀
@severeon
3 сағат бұрын
I am really uncomfortable with peer reviews including the exchange of money... Donations... Maybe, but I they kinda need to separate the donor from the recipient to prevent the appearance of bribery... Idk Is there a make-a-wish for scientists that I can help fund?
@innuendo70
9 сағат бұрын
With the availability of self publishing platforms, why dont universities just move to use Amazon, Kobo, iBooks, Play books and maybe IngramSparc ebook and POD services and do the whole journal thing themselves in some kind of inter-university coopetations? Its 2024, if everyone and their cousin including colege drop outs can write a novel and get a team together of editors, beta readers, ilustrators and cover artists to publish it using ebook playforms and POD services, surely universities with batalions of P.hds should be able to do the same with journals. Or am I missing something?
@Thomas-gk42
9 сағат бұрын
You don´t, I think
@maymkn
3 сағат бұрын
Yes, you are missing something- a brain!
@tomholroyd7519
2 сағат бұрын
Oh my, look, when you get reviews for free, it turns out they are shit what is surprising is how long this model has lasted (SOME reviewers are HONEST)
@orion789
3 сағат бұрын
When we speak of bamboo science, are we talking about the plant, or about its phallic symbology?
@Thomas-gk42
3 сағат бұрын
So many questions...
@jamesonpace726
2 сағат бұрын
What a mess. Ideally, gov't should pay equally to all for these services, but we know how "equal" that'll end up....
@Oxxyjoe
2 сағат бұрын
"I can gather all the science-news I need on the Sabine report." a Paul Simon impersonator
@gyurilajos7220
2 сағат бұрын
Publish or perish never been my path but surely publishers should perish. I submitted a paper to a conference to an Outrageous Ideas track. One referee ranked it as game changer. It was rejected. It had over 3000 views that's more than accepted papers.
@trixer230
2 сағат бұрын
I've been trying to tell people these exact things for years! Thank you!!!!
@helicalactual
12 сағат бұрын
I will actually look into writing a paper about it lol
@Naomi_Boyd
2 сағат бұрын
The system would stop working? You think it is working now?
@nicolaspassarelli4869
2 сағат бұрын
I am currently unemployed but just asked to peer-review a paper from Optica. I want to get an explanation about which part of my salary is paying for this part of my job! It seems that I need to do community service for a community that kicked me out for not having enough papers in Optica.
@user-eg2oe7pv2i
2 сағат бұрын
now you know why sky scholar (youtube channel ) self publish
@alieninmybeverage
9 сағат бұрын
The sunker the cost, the greater the science being signaled. That's why peer review is for reviewing peers. It's right there in the name.
@Zurpanik
3 сағат бұрын
I don't fully understand what the issue is here at large, but it seems that there is a great deal of misunderstanding in general (not just from myself ha). Would it be possible to make a larger video about this and perhaps cover actual causes and solutions? Eventually, the money thing will only be for luxury goods and staples will be guaranteed. I think we've got to make sure science is always guaranteed and free, and maybe we need to adjust the system to really take care of people in the first place. Anyway thanks for the information!
@mm650
2 сағат бұрын
A seriously hope that this lawsuit fails horribly. People hate the the journal publishers because of something false that even you said at the front of you video Sabine: That publishers take free labor and sell it for a big profit. The profit is not that big. I personally am an associate editor of a small academic journal in the Mary Ann Liebert group. There are about 50 other associate editors, 2 copy editors, one Principal Editor, and an Executive Editor. The associate editors all get paid essentially nothing or only a tiny fraction of their yearly salary for editorial duties. Call it $100 for each for us a year... or $5000 total, similarly the Principal Editor is mostly there to contribute his famous name... call it another $1000 for him. The two copy editors are actual full time professionals who, with benefits probably cost $120k each a year. The Executive Editor is also a full time professional and she costs closer, again with benefits, closer to $150k a year. So just the cost of the people who actually work for the journal itself, is already $396k a year! Next Mary Ann Liebert Inc. provides us with a wide variety of services, without which we would not be able to run a journal for a mere $396k, but they aren't free. It provides online hosting for the journal articles so they can be downloaded, it provides listing of those articles in academic databases like medline, and such, It provides marketing and access points for Libraries to subscribe to our journal and it provides access to complex online tools to facilitate finding and coordinating all of the communications necessary for peer review, it provides access to print publishing capability for those few people who still use paper for such things. All of that is provided to us for "free" in exchange for the right to market our journal to public and university libraries which are ultimately the only people who actually end up paying for subscriptions in the first place. A subscription to our journal costs about $500 a year when purchases together with the other Mary Ann Liebert Inc. journals as a bundle, and there are about 1000 libraries in the whole world that have bothered to do so. The cost of all those services that Mary Ann Liebert Inc. provides to us is at least as high as the cost of the people we employ... so the profit margin of Mary Ann Liebert Inc. for our journal is on the order of 20%. For the people who actually run the journal, us, it's negative as we don't actually see any of the revenue generated... we run the journal on grant money and internal university funds and thus at a loss. (That's not to say it isn't worth it for us... but its worth it in the same way advertising is worth it... by running the journal we gain prominence in our field which helps keep bringing the grant money in). So trying to switch to a paid peer review model will very clearly break the cost model of academic publishing hard. Sabine, towards the end you hit upon the solution, and fortunately it already exists! PREPRINT SERVERS!!!!!!!!! Peer review as it exists today is mostly a dinosaur. It comes from an era when people imagined that it was possible to have a vetted pool of verified true results that could exist and be updated in real time. But we know this is bonkers. A large fraction of all peer reviewed articles do not contain results that can be replicated in the first place. Even ones that in principle might be replicatable are performed on instruments that are one of a kind, like the large hadron collider, or Hubble Space Telescope, or such... replicating those results on the same instrument isn't really replicating it, it's just increasing the n of the original study. And replicating item on another isn't replication either, rther its arriving at the same result from a completely different experiment. Similarly, science is simply moving several orders of magnitude faster than peer review can EVER move now. We saw this in COVID: new strains of the virus were being sequences and added to the database every few hours or minutes at the height of the data collection. During that same period EXPEDITED peer review articles were seeing turn-around time of 6-10 weeks between submission and online publishing! NO! The answer to this is so simple: Drop the peer review system, move entirely to preprint servers, and then layer a public comment section with verified credentials on top of that for comment by the academic community on top of that. That's still peer review, it just happens out in the open and on the record.
@CagedInSilence
2 сағат бұрын
Time to do a colab with Legal Eagle. 🦅
@falahati
2 сағат бұрын
Many papers might have a delayed return. or maybe they are a small part of a bigger picture. Altho I don't like wasting money on useless papers, I also think that it is pretty hard to know what is useless and what is not. so in my opinion, changing that might be bad for the scientific community in the long term as many papers might never get the light of day deemed useless and boring.
@ConservativeC_yt
2 сағат бұрын
how much does it cost to host a website to publish on your own?
@pankothompson5903
2 сағат бұрын
there are many insane examples of things people submitted to show they dont read the papers or dont understand the material at all
@hugegamer5988
3 сағат бұрын
Remember the time a court ruled pi was actually not 3.14… but a whole number? Apparently it was a rational ruling.
@dennisbrown5313
3 сағат бұрын
lol; nice pun there. And yes, for an April fools joke, a legislative body did do that in a State - and made sure it was valid only for a single day.
@stoferb876
3 сағат бұрын
They didn't want an irrational number..... ;). Okey I'll show myself out...
@EbenBransome
2 сағат бұрын
Though I appreciate the pun, it was more than a joke. Religious Bible literalists argued that since the "sea" in the Temple of Solomon had a circumference three times the diameter, and the Bible is inerrant, pi must be 3. As an exercise, if the "sea" was actually elliptical, what ratio of major to minor axis makes the circumference 3D?
@iliaponomarev1624
2 сағат бұрын
Well, I'd say it was a wholesome ruling. Maybe we can even call it natural, considering pi is surely a positive thing. Calling it rational is a bit of an understatement.
@carlbrenninkmeijer8925
3 сағат бұрын
Things have changed since Elsevier started a long time ago!
@MartinDoudoroffLLC
3 сағат бұрын
Obviously, the solution is BLOCK CHAIN! (just kidding)
@barmalini
2 сағат бұрын
The only question I have is since when has psychology become a science.
@jrhoadley
7 сағат бұрын
Actually Bamboo Science sounds interesting, although I'm curious how much unique research is generated regularly.
@Thomas-gk42
3 сағат бұрын
Yep fascinating plant, from the biology to the use as energy or construction material🙂😉
@eonasjohn
2 сағат бұрын
Thank you for the video.
@ThibauddeLaMarnierre
3 сағат бұрын
Il faudrait aussi évoquer le manque de fiabilité de plusieurs revues spécialisées, je crois d’ailleurs que vous en aviez parlé précédemment.
@samgragas8467
2 сағат бұрын
The free market is driven by greed and balanced by intelligent consumers. A non-free market is not driven by greed so it is less profitable and efficient than an abstract perfect free market. I dont see how consumers can vote good science with their wallets.
@carlbrenninkmeijer8925
3 сағат бұрын
I like the Copernicus "open access"
@WilliamTaylor-h4r
2 сағат бұрын
So their rolling out the atomic pick and place; stanford stencil, or the telescope stock, kinderSpeculate.
@aniksamiurrahman6365
3 сағат бұрын
The best solution is to prohibit the for profit model in scientific publishing, making peer review obligatoryly double blind and provide bonus for the number of peer review to each reviewers. Stop the subsidy and only the most cheesy papers will ever make their way, and each paper will cost in hundreds and publishing each will still cause thousands without any 'open access'.
@Thomas-gk42
3 сағат бұрын
Sounds reasonable.
@FrancoisEustache-ed6gd
2 сағат бұрын
Modern Science has been build on the ideal of the Progress of Science and Technology for the benefit of Mankind. So a lot of it's ethics are assuming Mankind fundings. But in the western world Capital fundings got into the game and changed all that to a pragmatic Progress of Science and Technology for the primary benefit of the Investors which introduced a lot of distortion into the whole scientific processes ethics.
Пікірлер: 241