I'm considering applying this to all OSF preprints (bypass the OSF page and download the PDF instead) but not sure if anyone else is bothered by the page. Getting the PDF directly would be so much faster.
Here's what reading a PDF looks like without the extension: github.com/mvuorre/pdf-...
And here's with the extension: raw.githubusercontent.com/mvuorre/pdf-...
PDF-Direct Firefox extension ('Bypass "fancy online reader" and just get the darn pdf') updated: addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefo... & now supports
ACM
ACS
Cambridge University Press
Elsevier
IEEE
JSTOR
Nature
OUP
PLOS
PNAS
Royal Society Publishing
Sage
Science
Springer Nature
Taylor & Francis
Wiley
The best version of this response is behind some kind of a paywall that they can't get around.
"Preprinting Does Not Meet Science’s Duty of Care Responsibility to Society" raises questions such as "why do they talk of science as a monolithic thing but only discuss a narrow corner of it?" and "what the hell?" journal.trialanderror.org/pub/preprint...
Nordic regression (safer, healthier, fewer assumptions) ftw!
Indeed, and it seems to me that it is not enough to many to simply thank chatgpt in the same manner. I am not sure why but I'd like to hear a bit more about how the LLM contributed vs the authors' mom. I'm just curious to see where different fields' norms go with respect to ai use transparency.
I think I agree but want to push this point a bit. Do I have to cite my mom if I discuss my work with her and she gives useful advice? Points out some papers? Writes some ideas on bullet points? A paragraph of text for me to peruse? The machineness of the source does a lot in these convos I think.
This document wasn't written as a 'here's what we do in practice'. There's quite a few practical changes happening in this space in NL, such as integrating open science stuff in rewards and recognition (which does not of course change the fact that we operate in a pyramid scheme context).
Screen shot of section 1.1 of the report "vision for a new publication culture"
The governing body for 14 Dutch universities (UNL) has published a "Vision on Publication Culture" that is so inspiring and forward thinking. Worth a read for those trying to changes publishing and research assessment practices.
Take a read:
www.universiteitenvannederland.nl/files/public...
And another Quarto announcement; I've alluded to it before, but we're making it "official".
We've started work on Quarto 2. The blog post has an overview: quarto.org/docs/blog/po...
We'll share more in future blog posts, but here's what you can expect from the Quarto 2 dev effort:
(1/)
I like obsidian too, but isn't it (the core) closed source and developed mostly by folks based in the US? (I don't really care about the latter but it being closed source has always bothered me.)
bsky.app/profile/matt...
Huge new paper (with great data for further analyses) on replicability in psych just dropped.
Email signatures are a gateway drug to linkedin
This is it.
Did they get the New York Times to write about it? Among these co-authors are people with institutional press officers who could have gotten the job (their job) done for a preprint or some OA outlet.
Hehe that's probably true. But also researchers from less well funded backgrounds have to do more work to simply read this paper compared to you and I. I find this a disagreeable situation.
I agree not paying APC is the thing to do. I also think that your teams stellar reputation (and impact of this work) would support publicizing the preprints instead of the paywalled work.
Open Access is, to many, part of the open science agenda and we're in dire need of strong leadership there.
The project is so massive that it would have similar visibility if it was mailed to the Daily mail comments section.
The career boost argument is part of a broader circular argument (why does it boost, because people send best work to nature, why, because it boosts etc)
It may be weak but the fact stands that these publication decisions are creating that extra work for lit reviews and meta analyses. Also trivial is a skills thing, and this may not be obvious to all (some people don't even use Zotero, oddly).
I agree green OA is better than none. But i think this massively impactful project had a chance to improve open science in this front, and it didn't.
And it shouldn't be "not that hard" to find the PDF, it should just be the thing itself. Imagine meta analyzing a thousand papers.
And I would like to end by saying that this work is probably good, and certainly important, but could have led by example.
Sure Matti but there's a link to the preprint on our website (www.cos.io/score-evidence; not yet available).
Well okay, that's a good start, but just looking at the paywall page at nature I wouldn't know.
Sure Matti but we wanted to slap these in Nature for maximum impact and visibility.
Well okay, but surely with such a prestigious team you could have snail mailed a copy of a preprint to the Guardian or something, AND ensure that people can actually read the reports.
Sure Matti but you can access this through your institution or find the preprint.
Well no, I don't know if there is a preprint and maybe I operate in a patent office in Switzerland and not a university. Without access I can't even meta analyze the data presented therein.
Come on
To lead in open science efforts, we must engage in open science practices. These papers reporting on the reproducibility et al of science projects aren't even accessible. At least one of the commentaries was also closed access. This is a huge lost opportunity and sets a bad example to all.
Yeah this has always been the case.