Researchers never share. They want everyone else to share with them, but they never share. Well, they do want to share eventually (weee publish!), they just really don't want to be scooped. How do you fix this perverse situation of smart people? (full disclosure: I think I really don't like the whole archaic publishing process of current day academia. Maybe I'll find something down the road, but I feel like it's been long enough and I still don't really like it. (a))
- Create some incentive to reveal early what you're up to. Some kind of notoriety. Or, more excitingly
- Create a news site that hunts down things investigative journalism style. As soon as someone starts a trial or anything scientific they're posted in the papers. Of course researchers could 'turn themselves in', which is what they'd start doing if the journalists were good at sniffing them out anyway.
(a) Reasons I don't like the process.
- It's gatekept by established heavy weights which gives them too much power and takes it out of the hands of the everyman.
- It is so d*** boring.
- Honestly, I don't know who reads these. Either it's over your head and you don't get it and so you're completely bored with it, or you do get it and it's all redundant blah blah except for the findings. All the blah blah is just to cover your tail. Does anyone read beyond the abstract? They must, right? Who are these people?
- I don't like the static, done, set in stone, truth is found approach. I favor the kinetic, constantly honed approach. I would prefer things be written up blog-post style, and people would comment about things being wrong, which would be acknowledged and changed. And people could publish their ideas right at the beginning of the process. So if anyone ripped them off, you'd know they had the idea first.
- Create some incentive to reveal early what you're up to. Some kind of notoriety. Or, more excitingly
- Create a news site that hunts down things investigative journalism style. As soon as someone starts a trial or anything scientific they're posted in the papers. Of course researchers could 'turn themselves in', which is what they'd start doing if the journalists were good at sniffing them out anyway.
(a) Reasons I don't like the process.
- It's gatekept by established heavy weights which gives them too much power and takes it out of the hands of the everyman.
- It is so d*** boring.
- Honestly, I don't know who reads these. Either it's over your head and you don't get it and so you're completely bored with it, or you do get it and it's all redundant blah blah except for the findings. All the blah blah is just to cover your tail. Does anyone read beyond the abstract? They must, right? Who are these people?
- I don't like the static, done, set in stone, truth is found approach. I favor the kinetic, constantly honed approach. I would prefer things be written up blog-post style, and people would comment about things being wrong, which would be acknowledged and changed. And people could publish their ideas right at the beginning of the process. So if anyone ripped them off, you'd know they had the idea first.
Comments