Dr. jonny phd on Nostr: nprofile1q…cxm42 That is a very complicated question and was the subject of about a ...
nprofile1qy2hwumn8ghj7un9d3shjtnddaehgu3wwp6kyqpqjzgxd3ylxrpqcr90zss3ttyuk20cr6y9r7ewz2hyauvr4n0xzs8sucxm42 (nprofile…xm42)
That is a very complicated question and was the subject of about a third of my dissertation: https://jon-e.net/infrastructure
There is no simple answer! If I were to try and condense my thoughts to a single sentence it would be that we need to take advantage of the unmet needs that are inherent to any coercive system and build systems that are orthogonal to journals as such that make them irrelevant. I think trying to make "good" versions of any of the discrete parts of the current system are doomed to fail - there are too many failsafes in other parts of the system to allow any single part to be challenged on its own.
Building up from our tooling s.t. at the point one goes to publish, the paper is largely irrelevant is the most proximal goal, but there's a shitload of work in between here and there.
In the meantime, acknowledging the mythology, being outspoken as not participating in it is a strategy that has only been sparsely tried. Eve Marder is the only "big name" neuroscientist that I'm aware of. Every harmful or exploitative system is designed such that any marginal move against it is harmful to the person making that move - that's how they persist. It's a problem that doesn't get resolved at the level of individual people choosing a journal, but of a collective project to make the system work differently. Internalizing that it is all of our responsibility (not punting it to the funding agencies or intitutions), not being quiet about it or passively capitulating to it is a first step.
That is a very complicated question and was the subject of about a third of my dissertation: https://jon-e.net/infrastructure
There is no simple answer! If I were to try and condense my thoughts to a single sentence it would be that we need to take advantage of the unmet needs that are inherent to any coercive system and build systems that are orthogonal to journals as such that make them irrelevant. I think trying to make "good" versions of any of the discrete parts of the current system are doomed to fail - there are too many failsafes in other parts of the system to allow any single part to be challenged on its own.
Building up from our tooling s.t. at the point one goes to publish, the paper is largely irrelevant is the most proximal goal, but there's a shitload of work in between here and there.
In the meantime, acknowledging the mythology, being outspoken as not participating in it is a strategy that has only been sparsely tried. Eve Marder is the only "big name" neuroscientist that I'm aware of. Every harmful or exploitative system is designed such that any marginal move against it is harmful to the person making that move - that's how they persist. It's a problem that doesn't get resolved at the level of individual people choosing a journal, but of a collective project to make the system work differently. Internalizing that it is all of our responsibility (not punting it to the funding agencies or intitutions), not being quiet about it or passively capitulating to it is a first step.