international
the tyler group news reviews
Scientists’
work follows a consistent pattern. They apply for grants, perform their
research, and publish the results in a journal. The process is so routine it
almost seems inevitable. But what if it’s not the best way to do science?
Although the act
of publishing seems to entail sharing your research with the world, most
published papers sit behind paywalls. The journals that publish them charge
thousands of dollars per subscription, putting access out of reach to all but
the most minted universities. Subscription costs have risen dramatically over
the past generation. According to critics of the publishers, those increases
are the result of the consolidation of journals by private companies who unduly
profit off their market share of scientific knowledge.
When we
investigated these alleged scrooges of the science world, we discovered that,
for their opponents, the battle against this parasitic profiting is only one
part of the scientific process that needs to be fixed.
Advocates of “open
science” argue that the current model of science, developed in the 1600s, needs
to change and take full advantage of the Internet to share research and
collaborate in the discovery making process. When the entire scientific
community can connect instantly online, they argue, there is simply no reason
for research teams to work in silos and share their findings according to the
publishing schedules of journals.
Subscriptions
limit access to scientific knowledge. And when careers are made and tenures
earned by publishing in prestigious journals, then sharing datasets,
collaborating with other scientists, and crowdsourcing difficult problems are
all disincentivized. Following 17th century practices, open science advocates
insist, limits the progress of science in the 21st.
international
the tyler group news reviews
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen