Il business degli articoli scientifici | Patrizio Paolinelli

lterrat's bookmarks 2017-07-05


From Google Translate: "Today it is unthinkable to get to have a successful career in research without publishing the four or five best magazines in the world, which are classified thanks to parameters such as the impact factor (see box). A mechanism that indirectly pushes researchers, and those who finance them, to work on the kind of results that they know have a better chance of being published, to systematically discard the 'story' of the negative results (with a huge disservice to science, because in many try to get them without knowing that someone has already done), and in general to penalize the basic or less fashionable, instead, by definition, is one that can be more disruptive. 

THE JUDGMENT in New York will have no practical consequences: Sci-Hub and Library of Genesis are based in Russia, outside American jurisdiction. Probably he will push even more scientists to help these sites to disseminate research. And above all, as the biologist from Imperial College Stephen Curry in Nature, their immense popularity should make us reflect 'the frustration of so many people on the status quo of academic publications.' Some, however, did not really understand him, as the spokesman of the scientific editors Matt McKay: 'Sci-Hub adds no value to the academic community.'"


From feeds:

Open Access Tracking Project (OATP) » lterrat's bookmarks

Tags: oa.comment oa.italian oa.stem oa.open_science oa.publishing oa.access oa.guerrilla oa.litigation oa.principles oa.prestige


07/05/2017, 19:38