sciences.social is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
Non-profit, ad-free social media for social scientists. Join thousands of social scientists here and across the fediverse.

Administered by:

Server stats:

751
active users

#preprinting

0 posts0 participants0 posts today

@cwts colleague Wolfgang Kaltenbrunner just published paper about peer review in psychology doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/wfs9v.

The paper presents fascinating analysis of peer review practices in terms of tension between gift-giving and accumulation. Analysis is based on case studies of three publishing outlets: #PsychologicalScience, #Collabra and @PeerCommunityIn #RegisteredReports.

Recommended reading if you're interested in #OpenScience, #OpenData, #OpenPeerReview, #Preprinting or #RegisteredReports!

osf.ioOSF
Replied in thread

@themanual4am
@richardvenusfo @ngaylinn @Wolven
1) The problem, as you might suspect, is that authors that dont care enough to make their works freely available by #preprinting, depositing in institutional archives, etc. Probably wont care enough to designate a delegate authority - arguably thats what the arxivs and repositories already are.

Authors who publish closed access also typically dont care enough to retain #copyright in the first place, so while journals typically shy away from prosecuting authors for redistributing their own work, in some cases they no longer have the legal right to do so.

2) #SciHub is one. #PubMed is supposed to be another. But again the problem is copyright. Once you sit on a big vat of intellectual property, you usually dont just give it away even if the business folds - thats the most attractive part you can sell off, so usually it goes in the other direction. Smaller journal gets bought by bigger conglomerate, fill in the dots.

Re: above post on strategic refusal to pay, that was the last wave of library OA activism - trying to bargain out of subscriptions with "transformative agreements" intended to flip journals to open. To the degree that worked (it mostly didnt) it was because of the relative oligopsony of libraries as subscribers - you have to bargain with them because they're the only ones buying. The new scam of "author pays" #APC driven #OA blows that up on purpose by making it a much larger collective action problem. Rather than having to deal with increasingly militant library consortia, now you get to deal with individual authors who mostly dont understand the dynamics of the system and always believe themselves to be powerless on the prestige treadmill they feed.

Ive been trying to think up strategies for a sci-hub 2, but its tricky because, well, they have decades of litigation and lobbying and the global intellectual property regime on their side, but I think theres some interesting possibilities for p2p on a software platform like zotero.

PS. I wouldnt call myself particularly knowledgeable, most of what I know is from hanging out with librarians who are the ones who have been doing most of the work on this and dealing with it is sometimes their literal job