How Open-Access Journals Are Transforming Science
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 ноя 2017
- Academic publishers are locking up the latest research behind paywalls and hurting science, says Michael Eisen. We spoke with the co-founder of the Public Library of Science about democratizing scientific progress.
Subscribe to our RUclips channel: / reasontv
Like us on Facebook: / reason.magazine
Follow us on Twitter: / reason
Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes: goo.gl/az3a7a
Reason is the planet's leading source of news, politics, and culture from a libertarian perspective. Go to reason.com for a point of view you won't get from legacy media and old left-right opinion magazines.
----------------
Michael Eisen's goal is to change the way scientific findings are disseminated. Most research papers today are locked behind paywalls, and access can cost hundreds of dollars per article. The general public, and most scientists, don't have comprehensive access to the most up-to-date research, even though much of it is funded by U.S. taxpayers.
"It's a completely ridiculous system," says Eisen, an acclaimed biologist at UC Berkeley, an independent candidate for Senate in California running against Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D), and a co-founder of the Public Library of Science, or PLOS, which publishes some of the largest and most prestigious academic journals in the world. These publications stand out for another reason: They're open access, meaning that anyone with an internet connection can read them for free.
PLOS seeks to break up the academic publishing cartel, and it's a leading force in the so-called open science movement, which aims to give the public access to cutting-edge research and democratize scientific progress. This movement became widely publicized after famed hacker and Reddit co-founder Aaron Swartz sought to upend the publishing system by uploading millions of articles for free; he was prosecuted relentlessly, and ultimately committed suicide in 2013.
Eisen first thought he could simply convince his fellow scientists to start uploading their work, but that didn't work because universities and funding agencies use journals as a proxy for quality. They base tenure and award decisions in large part on how many articles a researcher publishes, and on the reputations of the publishers.
To encourage a switch in researchers' thinking, PLOS's first journal, PLOS Biology, attempted to emulate what Eisen describes as the "snooty" journals such as Science and Nature, which generate prestige in part by rejecting most submitted papers. PLOS Biology became well regarded and provided a proof of concept for PLOS's model, in which funding agencies or universities pay a flat fee up front (typically $1,500, but adjusted based on ability to pay) that's then made accessible for free.
The multidisciplinary journal PLOS ONE, created in 2006, used this same model to become the largest academic publication in the world, though it's been surpassed by other open access sources. PLOS ONE puts papers through a fairly typical peer review process, but it doesn't ask editors to determine a paper's importance; the journal will publish any study that follows sound science and reports its data. According to Eisen, this model encourages more thorough experiments, rather than flashy results that aren't reproducible, and allows readers to determine whether a particular study is important and valid.
Reason spoke with Eisen at the BioHack the Planet Conference in Oakland, a gathering for DIY scientists known as biohackers who eschew traditional research institutions. They often carry out experiments in garage labs and share their raw findings on the internet in real time, a publishing model to which Eisen believes all scientists should aspire.
Eisen also discussed why scientists and universities continue to prop up the academic publishing monopoly, how scientific progress suffers from the current regime, why he's running for senate as an independent, why he beleives political parties are obsolete, and the way forward for the open science movement.
Produced by Justin Monticello. Cameras by Alexis Garcia and Monticello. Music by Silent Partner ( • Which Way Is Up? - Sil... ), Vibe Tracks ( • Universal - Vibe Tracks ), and MK2 ( • Creepin - MK2 ).
Government research grants should forbid publication of research in only paywalled journals. Journals like Nature and Science require that submissions not be available to the public. That must end.
George Applegate sounds like the perfect rider on a budget bill
Get government out all together
Christopher Hitchens said he became a journalist so he wouldn't have to trust the news to tell him the real story. That's why I became a scientist.
Hows that going these days? Clearly science is out of control.
The problem is the grant funding; how do you justify your grants? "Look at where I published..."
It is up to those seeking grant funding to express the idea that "Look where I published" may not be the most accurate measurement of their competency as a scientist.
Brentjr94 sadly that is the culture, want a faculty position? Where did you publish, which uni did you come from...
@@Ultrajamz Check out freeourknowledge.org for a novel solution to the cultural inertia problem
Open-Source... This is not complicated. If you want a problem solved... let everyone on the planet have a go...
There're a lot of open access journals by the way. A good reason to publish on them is it means more people read it.
Which is the point.
Dr. Alvin Weinberg, director of Oak Ridge National Lab, invented his preferred civilian nuclear reactor for passive safety at low pressures. Search Molten Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE).
What the interviewer has not mentioned (and is imo negligent for not tackling) is the problem of "predatory journals". So many f the open-access journals are not properly peer-reviewed, and simply spam people looking for content to charge researchers to publish. No reputable institution will credit such publications, and a habit of publishing in such locations will actively harm a researcher's career.
For open-access journals to gain any real traction the problem of predatory journals needs to be tackled. If anything this has become worse over time instead of better, as harassment from these parasites has led to shutting of resources to differentiate predatory from non-predatory publications such as Beall's list.
College student here - our students government just meet with other SG groups throughout texas so we can get public funding for open access textbooks. I am a small l libertarian because there are certain things that the private sector is annoying at. Never open access means more competition in the market driving down prices
I all for open scientific papers, I'm all for consumer rights through regulation and for net neutrality.
People who think that their cookie cutter ideology can be used everywhere have a too simple approach to reality.
Yea that is one thing that was irritating when doing research
Very good idea 🙏🙏🙏
Interesting video, but I'd like to clarify the description of the differences in the peer-review process between open access journals and traditional journals. Peer-review in specific paid journals is done by scientists who are expert in the field of the article being published. Open-access journals do not have experts in every field to verify the validity of the data published, so their peer-review process is necessarily less rigorous. Other good points were made about the value of open access journals in the video however, especially for providing a platform for valuable, unsupported science.
Good video
Another winner from Reason. You can smell the sarcasm, right?
I love your videos!
He takes his assumption as fact....
yes
Why do an open access journal do charge an author?
Non-subsidised scientists have the right to make a profit of their findings.
Science should always be subsided.
I keep my university e-mail account so access this stuff. Lucky for me duke university is in the same city
Fine. Open access is good. However, for authors without financial support it is quite expensive to publish. The idea is great but not pragmatic across all areas across all researchers.
This guys said that political parties are bad but he also said that people "should form coalitions around ideas". I'm so confused lol...
Coalitions around principled ideas are fine. Tribal coalitions around nothing more complex than a party label are destructive. Political parties are not formed around principled ideas, but the latter.
Brentjr94 How do you think political parties started?
Sure, they started around central ideas. That doesn't mean that is what they are today. Today political parties are a form of natural, human tribalism. We do not care about principle or ideas, but rather we care and instantly agree with the opinions of those leading our parties. We find ways to morally justify the opinions which combat our own moral beliefs, the abhorrent actions, and the hypocrisy of those in our own party simply because they are on our team (see Republican Roy Moore sympathizers and/or feminist Bill Clinton sympathizers in the '90s)
Brentjr94 You still haven't explained how idea coalitions will be any different than political parties. How will idea coalitions avoid the tribalism you are talking about and aren't there people on both sides who speak against the parties inconsistencies and hypocrisy? Should it not be your job to tell people that they are being tribal and to remember the ideals of the party? You do know that political parties still have ideals right?
Political parties as a term is an abstraction from what we have. What we have has very close to zero accountability to us and gets to skate around doing their job by blackmailing us. I'm not sure why you would defend any of the parties in power in the United States of America.
Regulations always make things worst. If you don't like something about society than use the free market to change it. Persuade people to change but don't dare to use the government to make things worst and take our freedoms away.
German Carranza It doesn't make things worse in regard to the environment though with basic regualtion on things like water, air, and solid pollution. Yea it has some downside, but isn't the upside much better for this case in particular?
Hawksm278 not particularly. It still makes way for overreach and generally rushed decisions with unfortunate consequences.
Utter nonsense. I'm guessing you're not a scientist... at all.
We're developing a collective action platform to help researchers drive change in the publishing system. Pledge to change your publishing behaviours (e.g. publish exclusively open access), but only after a critical mass of support is reached in your field. Check out freeourknowledge.org for more info and to make a pledge today!
Oh wow, access to verified, open information is revolutionizing the world. The written press you say ? The same concept you say ? And it only took us a shit ton of time you say ?
.... xD
He wouldn't win as a republican in California that's why he runs as independent
Apparently this guy missed Economics 101. Whatever you incentivize, people will start doing. Since there is such a strong incentive for researchers to produce research findings, because people pay for it, there is a strong incentive for researchers to continue doing it. Doing things for public charity is nice, but it's not money.
This interviewer's nods are hilarious
Climate?
Oh dear
Liberty&Nonintervention Yeah he's part of the conspiracy to be alble to sell fucking solarpanels and therefore take over the world.
those libertarians want to excess everything for free. they dont want to pay for it. this sense of entitlement though.
People hate Middle man not because he is making money but mostly middle man creates monopoly or oligarchy and control the flow and go after anyone who try to bypass them.
This guy is a scary wannabe technocrat.
It'll work this time if only our computers are good enough to centrally plan the economy. I promise.
Reason = SJW Liberals.
Phone User troll
Phone user.
Oh my fucking god.
Is this the image you want to give libertarians? A guy who calls everyone a communist in order to ad hominem them.