Post #2433600
2024-03-31 00:10 UTC
Replies (2)
-
@johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org 2024-03-31 00:50
@aj_boston@hcommons.social Interesting analysis, pulling different perspectives together. I agree that there are clear and immediate benefits to a preprint mandate even if publishers will still try (and likely succeed) to extract profit from the system. I’m a bit more pessimistic about “[most researchers] think of publication as a necessary distraction […] away from doing actual research”. I feel that after such long reign of “publish or perish”, publications are firmly rooted as the end goal in many minds.
-
@brembs@mastodon.social 2024-03-31 11:10
@aj_boston@hcommons.social @johannes_lehmann@fediscience.org @villavelius@mastodon.online @mattjhodgkinson@scicomm.xyz @Luke_Drury@mastodon.dias.ie You raise a point that has been bothering me for quite some time now: individual mandates. See, e.g., https://bjoern.brembs.net/2013/11/the-achilles-heel-of-open-access-mandates/ from 2013, or https://bjoern.brembs.net/2018/11/maybe-try-another-kind-of-mandate/ from 2018. What we really need are mandates on institutions, not individuals. Institutions are paying the money that keeps the legacy system going. Institutions are multipliers, each iwth hundreds, some even with thousands of researchers.