❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️

Pubpeer browser extension is useful tho

It was supposed to be, but the rxivs sorta chickened out

public peer review is extremely good and you can see why it might be threatening to the prestige publication system to have discussion that contextualizes a work on the work itself rather than selling 10 more standalone articles that only engage with each other in passing.

How about that elife review model for making what would otherwise be a provocative paper with a good but flawed argument into a genuinely useful discussion about the meaning of its results and implications for the field

For each recording of a different piece of a music, we found a subset of piano keys that were selectively activated during melodies. Aggregating these melody-selective keys across pieces ...

You can find correlations between activity of a system and its inputs/outputs, but it also turns out there are infinitely many configurations of the system that would yield such correlations, and so the correlations are not a statement about the structure of the system as such.

do you ever worry about photon's longstanding history of making the innermost portion of our solar system uninhabitable when promoting perceiving anything visually?

Real "the most perfect piece of music is moonlight sonata" kind of guys riding around on all the capital

Just two american psycho guys having the only possible conversation one can have about art

And b) it's such a bad strawman, nobody believes that literally every scholarly text must be OA, and everyone sets that line differently. I wonder who set the conditions of normalcy in the "OA bully" trope of "normal scientists just want to publish their work in normal ways but..."

I guess the thing that really bothers me about casting "OA" as a a) unsustainable and b) monoculture is that a) I would love to directly pay the costs of keeping a process running or an author for their time spent writing, but that's not how this system works, and is specifically what it precludes

No you see that is "predatory publishing" when a publisher charges a sliding APC scale by prestige for pay-per-citation price discrimination. Normal publishers merely charge a sliding APC scale by prestige for pay-per-citation price discrimination

to me ecosystem diversity idk looks more like "lots of different ways to publish that aren't journal articles run by information cartels, different mediums, modes of peer review, that we can own and govern as researchers" vs. "When do you pay your ransom and how much can you afford"

Suggesting that the for-profit publishers being able to have lots of different billing strategies constitutes ecosystem diversity is very funny to me given how they refuse to even list JOSS in their indexes because it is slightly out of the norm with its peer review model.

The fact that publishers have concocted a number of schemes to keep their profit despite the ethical imperative to make public research free is not an argument that OA is always a mix of good and bad, but that OA is just a symptom of the real goal to be rid of for-profit publishing.

A multibillion dollar industry with higher profit margins than weapons contractors holding publicly funded research for ransom is ethically indistinguishable from making publicly funded research freely available to the public. Proof: there are lots of things going on and who can say what anything is

No model of labor is morally superior or inferior to another: extracting surplus labor value as a parasitic rentseeking class is no more or less morally problematic than a rentseeking class extracting surplus labor value

You know you've written a visionary work when the answer to "what could we do to advance these principles?" Is "literally anything, or nothing, because no advocacy was taken"