You forgot to mention that open access journals often charge absurd fees to get your paper published, and researchers in developing countries do not have such amounts of funding to pay for them. This has been a major barrier for me and my colleagues, while researchers in Europe and the US can publish at a higher rate because they can afford these publishing rates.
Even in the US and Europe, as an early career researcher, the processing charge fees are still exorbitant. For more things to be open access, we need to disincentivize high article processing charges.
@@alamimouad Are you naive or completely ignorant about the academic world? Can you tell me about a well-reviewed open access journal? Especially in English... I won't be condescending but seriously since the transformation of the University into industry, knowledge is today a product.
@@karldehautwe should increase the prestige of small but well reviewed papers. Almost every small eastern european central bank or scientific academy has their journals, which are rather free/cheap/ and are usually well reviewed... They just lack prestige and revoulutianary papers
One thing the video did not mention is that much of the published research is funded through taxes and then put behind a paywall. This means that taxpayers cannot access the research they fund.
@@benbookworm, thanks for the lead. It turns out that Biden issued an executive order to that effect, which is described here: www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/news-updates/2022/08/25/ostp-issues-guidance-to-make-federally-funded-research-freely-available-without-delay/ One benefit of an executive order is that it bypasses the dysfunctional congress, but it also means that it is easier to revoke by a subsequent administration. All the publishing lobby needs to do is increase its legalized bribes---er, I mean---free speech to persuade the next geroncrat to revoke the policy. Honestly, we could publish research on the Open Science Framework and make the peer review process public. Some details would require further thought, but open publishing is mostly a social/institutional problem rather than a technological problem. This would make a good topic for the channel, Pete Judo.
@Pete Judo, I really liked this video. I agree with everything in this video except the blurb about "Masterworks". Masterworks is NOT democratization OR accessibility of modern art. Modern art (as utilized by Masterworks) is used as a security - as an investment product - as a financial service. In effect, it just allows the common man to also GAMBLE and compete with high net-worth individuals and corporations. I don't see any benefit to society by providing another "investment vehicle" to gamble on.
I think we are often talking about very radical changes whereas small incremental changes could be more effective. The entire discussion around publishing used data shouldn't be "always publish all data" vs "don't publish data because privacy". You could have a publisher require that if you don't publish data, you have to write a justification in your paper why you didn't. Make incremental changes which allows the current way of working still possible, but discourages 'undesired behaviour' (not outright ban it).
I still don't get what the journals are charging the exorbitant amount for? I mean the researcher who is contributing the knowledge does not get paid for it, most of the time the reviewers are also do this free of charge, same for the editors. So if everyone who is essential to the process works for free, what are we being charged for?
okay, so just finished watching the video. just wanna say this video is a breath of fresh air! Open science is the way forward, and your explanation was so clear and engaging. Thanks for shedding light on such a important topic! 🙌
I don’t think many people think the scientific *method* is broken, as you said twice. Rather, there has been a hemorrhage of trust in establishment science, especially state-affiliated science and the trend of scientism-for good reason.
Yep, I am an engineer by profession, I trust in the scientific method, and that is precisely why I have zero trust in the modern orthodoxy wearing the name of “science” where even asking questions that go against the establishment narrative will get you excommunicated from the church.
Here, here! This is sorely needed to help combat corruption. And paywalls aren't just destroying academia, but contribute to the hoarding of information that really needs to be accessible to the general public, as well as promoting group-think and confining collaboration to counterproductive thought vacuums. It's not about science anymore. It's about maintaining livelihoods and personal gain.
Stack overflow was pretty useless for me starting out. I'd search for answers to a basic problem I had and the top Google result would be my question exactly on stack overflow followed by a mod saying it's a duplicate question and locking the thread with no link to where the question was actually answered.
great Video! Open science movement definitely needs promotion! as a side note: not only papers benefit from references but RUclips videos too! it would be super cool to have some links to dive deeper
This…I do not see enough people talking about this!! If we want false information to stop being rampant, why is academia locked up? I’m thankful to have access to so many journal sites because of my education, but it’s always frustrated me that that knowledge is not accessible to everyone. People end up believing distorted results from studies based on click bait headlines and poorly written articles.
Knowledge - once it leaves a human’s brain - belongs to everyone. No one should be denied access to it. Whether it’s a song, a novel, the formulation of aspirin or of a vaccine, once it’s out, once it’s unbound, it is no longer *property*.
Yep t'was the case before WWI... After that, a slow but profound trend of transforming universities into industry and publicly funded privatization of knowledge begins to emerge. The 80s put the final nail in the coffin. It is interesting to read 18th century texts on universities, the objectives and values of knowledge and to compare with 21st century texts. A gap? No, an abyss
This is one of the things that i absolutely loathe about academia. To obtain verifiable sources, I would have to take a damn shovel to my bank account just to ensure i have shit that can corroborate with each other which can obtain some level of verifiability. Fucking annoying
Idea that I should work on paper, collect the data, write the paper and pay to journal to review it...and then sell it FOR THEIR PROFIT is just mind boggling to me. Research should be online, free and available to other researchers to review, leave comments and ask for clarifications. For instance once paper is uploaded it should be "on probation" for 3 months were others can suggest changes, point out errors etc. After that author can upload final version and that is that. Still not perfect system but it would probably be leaps and bound better than what we have today.
I agree with you. My objection is that today the University has become an industry and that knowledge is the product. Open access is a nightmare for the supporters of this system. For example, the comparison with Masterwork suggests that even you are not seeing the situation in its historical and socio-economic context.
I think this is a great idea. It seems to me that there are university professors and academics who are very knowledgeable and great teachers. Putting a ton of pressure on them to constantly come up with something new is obviously not a good model. I know so many people who’ve left “toxic” academia and have the worst horror stories. I think it comes down to how academics are judged. They should be based on how knowledgeable they are, how well they promote and teach their field of expertise and, in a perfect world, how much they contribute to and help open source research.
You have provoked a lot of interesting comments on this video! One thing that occurred to me - and I know you have talked about this before - but it is ordinary tax payers who pay, and publishing companies who profit. The University nation's taxpayers fund academics to do the research; support academics to write the articles, to peer review other's articles, to prepare their own articles for publication; and then for taxpayers of many nations to fund international libraries. That may be direct taxes such as income or value-added tax; or indirect tax such as University fees for their children, or scholarships through businesses.
I'm totally in favor of Open Science, but the four keys are not enough. We need to trust the input data. Secrecy and privacy in the data are not compatible with the open principles. Anyone that agrees to participate in a scientific experiment should agree to have their data exposed. Otherwise anyone can (and have done numerous times) invent data to prove whatever flawed hypothesis they want. At this point I lost trust almost completely in the academia because nothing guarantees that whatever data they present was not purely invented out of thin air. Data need to be audited.
I agree. There should be something (or someone) like a data integrity process/person that would verify the data and the method in which the data was collected. I'm thinking of something along the lines of data integrity regulation for the academic/research industry. Also, there should be a data anonymization or privacy protection process that would be responsible for protecting the sources (people) on which the data is based.
@@jaytsecan I agree in part with what you're saying. But the point of openness is to avoid the "who watches the watchman" problem. If there is a body of privileged people that can audit the data, they can also be corrupted. The point of openness is so that every step of the process can be audited by anyone.
@@skleon I think we are talking about the same thing but in different ways. The end goal IS (or should be) openness of data, as you say. But before the data is "opened" to everyone, there should be processes in place to ratify the "quality" of the data. It would be counterproductive for the research community to spend time and resources analyzing data that is of low quality (biased data, faked data, etc.). So the role of the watchman is not to be an arbiter or gatekeeper of the data, but rather a "quality assurance of data analyzer". For eg. In the financial industry you have security/credit rating agencies that perform the role of rating the risk, quality, etc. of different securities (financial products). It is still the responsibility of the end-user to analyze the security (taking the rating agency's assessment into account). Similarly in academia, the "watchman" is an intermediate step before the data is passed on to the community.
@@jaytsecan Ah now I see. I agree in part. The other side of the coin is that these gatekeepers could "block" the release of good data but that endorses an argument against their own agenda.
Given the anti-fraud focus of your work, which I respect, it's disappointing that you accepted sponsorship from an inherently scammy industry: consumer-focused art "investing."
I used to go request papers at a university library, because I had my PhD from there, and knew the librarian. But he retired, and now, I choke when I see the prices of a journal article! I don't know how an open science pay system would work, though. Who pays for researchers? Publishing? Editing? Money....
Did you know that in the vast majority of countries, universities are public. In the United States, most private universities are heavily subsidized by the public (directly or indirectly). So ask yourself the question “who will pay?” » while it is already largely financed by public funds
I think the risks outweigh the benefits of an open system. the closed system works, maybe slowly and maybe the scientific advancement trips and falls sometimes but it stands back up and keeps going eventually.
Not necessarily a scam, just very likely to fail most of its customers (i.e. extremely high risk). Content creators have to eat too though! It feels like there are some intertwined themes between the subject of this video and the sponsor.
I think the most flawed part of todays research is that most people have no way of accessing research papers. If academia was ran like a company, as in "we must provide the best products at the lowest cost possible", I think this would enable market incentives to take place, rewarding those who make research that actually improve peoples lives, over those who have no benefits to society. Also, removing IP restrictions would make competition fiercer and accelerate new developments in science. This is a VERY unpopular opinion, but hey, what are you going to do about it?
@PeGaiarsa I think part of the problem is that research publication IS run by companies. Most of the research papers are charged at all the market will bear. I have been asked to pay USD$75 for one year's access to a single paper. That is more than a textbook costs in my country.
I think you misunderstand how companies (and corporations) work under capitalism (at least as practised in the West). Companies focus on "selling products/services for the highest possible price (profit) as its first principle." After that comes the quality of the product - it's not the best product/service that a company is interested in, but instead the least costly method of producing the product or service (which may mean lower quality products - including strategies like planned obsolescence, paying low wages, labor abuse, etc.) while trying to maintain an equilibrium with the ability to sell the product/service. Capitalism (and profit/market incentives) are the VERY issues that exacerbate the problems found in academia.
![The moment we stopped understanding AI [AlexNet]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/UZDiGooFs54/mqdefault.jpg)
You forgot to mention that open access journals often charge absurd fees to get your paper published, and researchers in developing countries do not have such amounts of funding to pay for them. This has been a major barrier for me and my colleagues, while researchers in Europe and the US can publish at a higher rate because they can afford these publishing rates.
Even in the US and Europe, as an early career researcher, the processing charge fees are still exorbitant. For more things to be open access, we need to disincentivize high article processing charges.
Basically, either the researcher or the reader pays. But the journals get paid either way.
@@alamimouad Are you naive or completely ignorant about the academic world? Can you tell me about a well-reviewed open access journal? Especially in English... I won't be condescending but seriously since the transformation of the University into industry, knowledge is today a product.
@@alamimouadaint gonna work m8, the more expensive = the more credible, i know it doesnt make sense, but thats just how it is out here
@@karldehautwe should increase the prestige of small but well reviewed papers. Almost every small eastern european central bank or scientific academy has their journals, which are rather free/cheap/ and are usually well reviewed... They just lack prestige and revoulutianary papers
One thing the video did not mention is that much of the published research is funded through taxes and then put behind a paywall. This means that taxpayers cannot access the research they fund.
I recall that a law was passed in the last year that said as of some effective date, all government subsidized studies have to be free to access
@@benbookworm, thanks for the lead. It turns out that Biden issued an executive order to that effect, which is described here:
www.whitehouse.gov/ostp/news-updates/2022/08/25/ostp-issues-guidance-to-make-federally-funded-research-freely-available-without-delay/
One benefit of an executive order is that it bypasses the dysfunctional congress, but it also means that it is easier to revoke by a subsequent administration. All the publishing lobby needs to do is increase its legalized bribes---er, I mean---free speech to persuade the next geroncrat to revoke the policy.
Honestly, we could publish research on the Open Science Framework and make the peer review process public. Some details would require further thought, but open publishing is mostly a social/institutional problem rather than a technological problem. This would make a good topic for the channel, Pete Judo.
@@benbookwormwow! I hope we get than in Canada as well. That would be great.
@Pete Judo, I really liked this video. I agree with everything in this video except the blurb about "Masterworks". Masterworks is NOT democratization OR accessibility of modern art. Modern art (as utilized by Masterworks) is used as a security - as an investment product - as a financial service. In effect, it just allows the common man to also GAMBLE and compete with high net-worth individuals and corporations. I don't see any benefit to society by providing another "investment vehicle" to gamble on.
I think we are often talking about very radical changes whereas small incremental changes could be more effective. The entire discussion around publishing used data shouldn't be "always publish all data" vs "don't publish data because privacy". You could have a publisher require that if you don't publish data, you have to write a justification in your paper why you didn't. Make incremental changes which allows the current way of working still possible, but discourages 'undesired behaviour' (not outright ban it).
I still don't get what the journals are charging the exorbitant amount for?
I mean the researcher who is contributing the knowledge does not get paid for it, most of the time the reviewers are also do this free of charge, same for the editors.
So if everyone who is essential to the process works for free, what are we being charged for?
Good question
okay, so just finished watching the video. just wanna say this video is a breath of fresh air! Open science is the way forward, and your explanation was so clear and engaging. Thanks for shedding light on such a important topic! 🙌
I don’t think many people think the scientific *method* is broken, as you said twice. Rather, there has been a hemorrhage of trust in establishment science, especially state-affiliated science and the trend of scientism-for good reason.
Yep, I am an engineer by profession, I trust in the scientific method, and that is precisely why I have zero trust in the modern orthodoxy wearing the name of “science” where even asking questions that go against the establishment narrative will get you excommunicated from the church.
In a world that will only be more flooded by generated noise, yes. We need real information to be accessible.
Here, here! This is sorely needed to help combat corruption. And paywalls aren't just destroying academia, but contribute to the hoarding of information that really needs to be accessible to the general public, as well as promoting group-think and confining collaboration to counterproductive thought vacuums. It's not about science anymore. It's about maintaining livelihoods and personal gain.
Stack overflow was pretty useless for me starting out. I'd search for answers to a basic problem I had and the top Google result would be my question exactly on stack overflow followed by a mod saying it's a duplicate question and locking the thread with no link to where the question was actually answered.
The scientific method isn't broken. Academia is. These are not equivalent things.
great Video! Open science movement definitely needs promotion! as a side note: not only papers benefit from references but RUclips videos too! it would be super cool to have some links to dive deeper
This…I do not see enough people talking about this!! If we want false information to stop being rampant, why is academia locked up? I’m thankful to have access to so many journal sites because of my education, but it’s always frustrated me that that knowledge is not accessible to everyone. People end up believing distorted results from studies based on click bait headlines and poorly written articles.
FYI: at 7:24 it is not Picasso, it is Wassily Kandinsky, the painting is called "Transverse Line".
Knowledge - once it leaves a human’s brain - belongs to everyone. No one should be denied access to it. Whether it’s a song, a novel, the formulation of aspirin or of a vaccine, once it’s out, once it’s unbound, it is no longer *property*.
Yep t'was the case before WWI... After that, a slow but profound trend of transforming universities into industry and publicly funded privatization of knowledge begins to emerge. The 80s put the final nail in the coffin. It is interesting to read 18th century texts on universities, the objectives and values of knowledge and to compare with 21st century texts. A gap? No, an abyss
This is one of the things that i absolutely loathe about academia. To obtain verifiable sources, I would have to take a damn shovel to my bank account just to ensure i have shit that can corroborate with each other which can obtain some level of verifiability. Fucking annoying
The Pharmaceutical Lobby immediately dispatches the Shinobi to come get Pete.
Idea that I should work on paper, collect the data, write the paper and pay to journal to review it...and then sell it FOR THEIR PROFIT is just mind boggling to me.
Research should be online, free and available to other researchers to review, leave comments and ask for clarifications. For instance once paper is uploaded it should be "on probation" for 3 months were others can suggest changes, point out errors etc. After that author can upload final version and that is that. Still not perfect system but it would probably be leaps and bound better than what we have today.
I agree with you. My objection is that today the University has become an industry and that knowledge is the product. Open access is a nightmare for the supporters of this system. For example, the comparison with Masterwork suggests that even you are not seeing the situation in its historical and socio-economic context.
I think this is a great idea. It seems to me that there are university professors and academics who are very knowledgeable and great teachers. Putting a ton of pressure on them to constantly come up with something new is obviously not a good model. I know so many people who’ve left “toxic” academia and have the worst horror stories. I think it comes down to how academics are judged. They should be based on how knowledgeable they are, how well they promote and teach their field of expertise and, in a perfect world, how much they contribute to and help open source research.
You have provoked a lot of interesting comments on this video! One thing that occurred to me - and I know you have talked about this before - but it is ordinary tax payers who pay, and publishing companies who profit. The University nation's taxpayers fund academics to do the research; support academics to write the articles, to peer review other's articles, to prepare their own articles for publication; and then for taxpayers of many nations to fund international libraries. That may be direct taxes such as income or value-added tax; or indirect tax such as University fees for their children, or scholarships through businesses.
I'm totally in favor of Open Science, but the four keys are not enough. We need to trust the input data. Secrecy and privacy in the data are not compatible with the open principles. Anyone that agrees to participate in a scientific experiment should agree to have their data exposed. Otherwise anyone can (and have done numerous times) invent data to prove whatever flawed hypothesis they want.
At this point I lost trust almost completely in the academia because nothing guarantees that whatever data they present was not purely invented out of thin air. Data need to be audited.
I agree. There should be something (or someone) like a data integrity process/person that would verify the data and the method in which the data was collected. I'm thinking of something along the lines of data integrity regulation for the academic/research industry.
Also, there should be a data anonymization or privacy protection process that would be responsible for protecting the sources (people) on which the data is based.
@@jaytsecan I agree in part with what you're saying. But the point of openness is to avoid the "who watches the watchman" problem. If there is a body of privileged people that can audit the data, they can also be corrupted. The point of openness is so that every step of the process can be audited by anyone.
@@skleon I think we are talking about the same thing but in different ways. The end goal IS (or should be) openness of data, as you say. But before the data is "opened" to everyone, there should be processes in place to ratify the "quality" of the data. It would be counterproductive for the research community to spend time and resources analyzing data that is of low quality (biased data, faked data, etc.). So the role of the watchman is not to be an arbiter or gatekeeper of the data, but rather a "quality assurance of data analyzer". For eg. In the financial industry you have security/credit rating agencies that perform the role of rating the risk, quality, etc. of different securities (financial products). It is still the responsibility of the end-user to analyze the security (taking the rating agency's assessment into account). Similarly in academia, the "watchman" is an intermediate step before the data is passed on to the community.
@@jaytsecan Ah now I see. I agree in part. The other side of the coin is that these gatekeepers could "block" the release of good data but that endorses an argument against their own agenda.
Given the anti-fraud focus of your work, which I respect, it's disappointing that you accepted sponsorship from an inherently scammy industry: consumer-focused art "investing."
Open all the things!
hi guys, can sites like "library genesis" be considered as a part of open science movement?
Nice idea but whether you were successful in bringing about the suggested changes or not, would make little difference unless we change what money is.
Let's ask Aaron Swartz.
I'm disappointed you took masterworks as a sponsor. Your credibility fell a lot in my view.
I used to go request papers at a university library, because I had my PhD from there, and knew the librarian. But he retired, and now, I choke when I see the prices of a journal article! I don't know how an open science pay system would work, though. Who pays for researchers? Publishing? Editing? Money....
Prices are artificially inflated by the publishers. The peer reviewers don't get paid.
Did you know that in the vast majority of countries, universities are public. In the United States, most private universities are heavily subsidized by the public (directly or indirectly). So ask yourself the question “who will pay?” » while it is already largely financed by public funds
med life crisis has an interesting video about this too
Bro missed a Tai Lopez “Knowledge” clip at the beginning. Smh
Wikipedia is subjected to political biased though.
I think the risks outweigh the benefits of an open system. the closed system works, maybe slowly and maybe the scientific advancement trips and falls sometimes but it stands back up and keeps going eventually.
This will never happen. Wish michael mann and others agreed thiugh lol. Agw data shouldnt have to go to court cause they think people will find flaws.
lol a masterworks scam - unsubbed
by a guy who talks about bad science
Not necessarily a scam, just very likely to fail most of its customers (i.e. extremely high risk). Content creators have to eat too though! It feels like there are some intertwined themes between the subject of this video and the sponsor.
I think the most flawed part of todays research is that most people have no way of accessing research papers. If academia was ran like a company, as in "we must provide the best products at the lowest cost possible", I think this would enable market incentives to take place, rewarding those who make research that actually improve peoples lives, over those who have no benefits to society. Also, removing IP restrictions would make competition fiercer and accelerate new developments in science. This is a VERY unpopular opinion, but hey, what are you going to do about it?
@PeGaiarsa I think part of the problem is that research publication IS run by companies. Most of the research papers are charged at all the market will bear. I have been asked to pay USD$75 for one year's access to a single paper. That is more than a textbook costs in my country.
I think you misunderstand how companies (and corporations) work under capitalism (at least as practised in the West).
Companies focus on "selling products/services for the highest possible price (profit) as its first principle." After that comes the quality of the product - it's not the best product/service that a company is interested in, but instead the least costly method of producing the product or service (which may mean lower quality products - including strategies like planned obsolescence, paying low wages, labor abuse, etc.) while trying to maintain an equilibrium with the ability to sell the product/service.
Capitalism (and profit/market incentives) are the VERY issues that exacerbate the problems found in academia.
@@jaytsecan YES!
W
Sci-hub baby!
Name 1 poor person who discovered some science...
Not watching the video. Yes, it should be free.
No
:D
I hope this video won’t gonna make me join anti vaxxer 🥲🙏