Comments on: #scholpub, PeerJ and Tim O’Reilly

By: Around the Web: Potternomics, PeterSuberNomics, #ScholPubNomics and more [Confessions of a Science Librarian] « Random Information

Fri, 29 Jun 2012 07:43:55 +0000

[...] #scholpub, PeerJ and Tim O’Reilly [...]

By: Before It's News

Before It's News — Sat, 23 Jun 2012 15:27:34 +0000

[...] #scholpub, PeerJ and Tim O’Reilly [...]

By: pm286

pm286 — Thu, 21 Jun 2012 15:47:19 +0000

Bjoern,
I can’t and nobody can solve the problem of overprovision of scientists and underprovision of opportunities. Better metrics would make it slightly fairer. But only slightly. Ultimately assessment should be made by human examination OF THE SCIENCE, not where it was published.

I reviewed someone for tenure. I read their papers. It was hard work. But it’s fair. If they had said “she’s got 2 glory papers and he’s got 50 commodity papers so we’ll appoint him/her” that’s mindless.

the basic equation fails – not enough high quality reviewers, not enough time.

But at least commodity publishing can get science out to the world

By: Bjoern Brembs

Bjoern Brembs — Thu, 21 Jun 2012 15:22:06 +0000

This is all fine and well as long as the competition for jobs is not so high as to *strictly require* GLORY to stay in science. If you have to be able to pay 10k for each publication that will allow you to pay your bills, then your commodity market will be worse than what we have now. Maybe not for the non-scientist taxpayer, but definitely for every scientist without tenure.

Thus, the commodity market will tend to make things worse – unless we put the savings into measures that make GLORY completely optional. As long as GLORY is required, the commodity market will be worse than the mess we have now.