This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
A Tribute to Aaron Swartz - Post all academic articles for open public review, and end the traditional peer-review process
I did not know Aaron Swartz but I feel deep grief at his passing, and the circumstances.
I suspect that many people believe that the research of governments and academics belong in the public domain and should be available for all to review or simply access. This would eliminate the need for journals which set up an elite system that decides who can and cannot access the articles.
The idea behind the peer-review process is that others with robust knowledge (hopefully) of the material makes an assessment of the research methodology, accuracy etc etc.
In an open review process, the article would be placed on the institution's or authors' website which is designed to allow discussion. Anyone with interest can read the article and interact with the authors. The reviewers are not anonymous and their names, qualifications, knowledge of the topic will be known and available to the authors. The discussion remains public and online. There will likely be more than the traditional 3 reviewers, and the open discussion would strengthen the critical reviews.
One of the very unfair aspects of Aaron's case is that the real "thieves" are, in many cases, one or more of the listed authors who have not contributed to the articles, have plagiarized or otherwise taken credit for the work of others. The open review process might force some of the dishonesty from academic publications, while fulfilling the hope of open access.
What are your thoughts?
John Frum 30+
Having said that, many fields that I have come across already have academics who have been pushing for open access for quite a few years now, and have already achieved a good deal of success at it. See https://plus.google.com/104362980539466846301/posts/WStiQ38Hioy or http://www.nature.com/news/mathematicians-aim-to-take-publishers-out-of-publishing-1.12243 for recent examples.
The peer review process for many open journals is (IMHO) moslty good enough. However, there are still some people in academia who prefer an even more open review process: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1011.6590v1.pdf
There is already a trend towards more openness, and I don't see Aaron's death making much difference to it. However, Aaron's death has shaken the convictions of the people actually responsible for his despair - the agencies of government that made this particular kind of prosecutorial overreach possible. "Shaken the convictions"? Well... I think they are spineless worms, and do not have real convictions, other than getting their next promotion. Let me rephrase that. Aaron's death has resulted in SOME of them worrying about what kind of crap they can get away with next time.
Julie Ann 10+
I hope you are wrong about Aaron's passing not making much of a difference. I hope it causes people to think about and act on what he was trying to accomplish. We are a reactive society and the reaction typically tends to be short-lived, but one can only hope that the impetus to do something is strong enough for greater steps to be taken. Thanks again.
John Frum 30+
begin quote >>
Ortiz’s spokeswoman, Christina DiIorio-Sterling, said last night the Swartz case won’t affect the office’s handling of other cases. “Absolutely not,” she said. “We thought the case was reasonably handled and we would not have done things differently.
“We’re going to continue doing the work of the office and of following our mission.”
Julie Ann 10+
John Frum 30+
These big publishers (Elsevier, Nature, Science, IEEE, Springer, Wiley) became big because publishing used to cost a lot of money, quite apart from the actual paper and print costs, there was the cost of actually running the business. With the internet, collaboration becomes a lot easier, and some academics realize that they, with a few volunteers, can actually run a journal in their spare time. If you start googling on this, there won't be an end to it.
Interestingly, my own field, which shall go unnamed, has taken a completely open approach to the whole thing. Anyone can download ALL the papers published in the last 30 years or so. Not only that, when researchers write software, it is typically with an open-source license.
Julie Ann 10+
Linda Taylor 50+
"With enough of us around the world, we'll not just send a strong message opposing the privatization of knowledge, we'll make it a thing of the past." ~ Aaron Swartz (1986-2013) RIP
Julie Ann 10+
Robert Winner 50+
As an example we discuss current economic conditions. I have selected my preference as Austrian as opposed to the Keynishian theories. My argument would be on political basis not an actual economic argument. Whereas the "expert peer" would be capable of arguing the intrensic and nuances values of the paper.
Perhaps there is a need to discuss the author. There are three types, in my opinion. 1) One in the service and developing a paper at the request of the government. 2) One who is in the employ of a University and is investigating for the university or under a grant. 3) Papers that were researched, developed, written, and presented at the sole expense and time of the author. With each of these there is a different guide to be followed in regard to the "domain".
So in regard to the review itself:
1) Public review (open): The basic argument is announced and two lines of thought are presented to be openly discussed with the commenters option of contact information.
2) Used as a 'learning opportunity" for masters and PHd candidates. They could argue or defend a paper as a part of the program to challenge their critical thinking skills.
3) Peer process as exists.
When a truck was stuck in the tunnel the engineers pondered the problem but a child suggested that they let some air out of the tires. Each of us bring something different to the table. No suggestion, comment, or analysis should be dismissed out of hand.
To me education is a journey ... To some of my graduate friends it has been a goal ... having a sheeps skin does not make you wise .. it simply implies that you have been exposed ... either the journey is continued or stopped. I answer your last question ... academic dishonest will always exist. Diploma mills are todays educational evil to face.
Bob.
Julie Ann 10+
I think the peer-review process is important and that must be maintained in an open, transparent environment. The traditional method of sending to a journal is eliminated and so the restrictive distribution is eliminated.
I agree that there is room for option 2 and certainly could set up a collaborative environment if a student had a particular interest in a particular paper.
There could also be a separate space for Option 1, public comments. However, I think the authors must be allowed the discretion of responding or not. It can be very time consuming to respond to every comment, if there are many. As Fritzie mentioned, some material may be irrelevant and create a "noisy" distraction. I t really depends on the type of article. Some are so specialized that only a handful of people have a clue while others have great public interest. Two recent publications come to mind that had both the professionals outraged and the public buzzing - one was a study that supposedly demonstrated that eggs were as bad for your heart as smoking and the other that being overweight was more healthy than not. I think a lot of experts would have liked to weigh in before they were published.
The principal point, however, is that the material be freely accessibly. If the peer-review is done openly on the authors' website by experts, the quality of the material is not compromised and will almost certainly be enhanced by the transparency.
As for the dishonesty, I think it will exist as much as it exists in any other aspect of human life. However, the real problem is that it is pervasive and entrenched and is seen as the norm. I think this is wrong and needs to change. Academics are protected by an illusion of integrity, unfortunately.
Robert Winner 50+
Fame is one thing but trillions in profits are a whole new ball game.
Thanks for the reply. I wish you well. Bob.
Kate Blake 50+
I know I totally appreciate his contribution to Creative Commons, something I've used extensively after having academics use my work. And sharing of articles would be worthy but agree with Fritzie that there needs to be a way to recover costs.
Reviewing the process of peer review desperately needs to happen and again I agree with Fritzie that researchers don't need the added distraction of getting immersed in debate and explanation with those less learned. But you make an extremely valid point about the misuse of others work, I'd add nepotism, professional biases and many other issues. A review of the process is due!
Julie Ann 10+
There is a lot that is unjust in the publishing world and it really needs to end. We consider ourselves to be civilized and we should act accordingly, I agree. Cheers.
Xavier Belvemont 30+
I'm sorry, but what?!
The government went on a complete onslaught against this guy.
They bankrupted him (out of Millions), pushed aside all companies/parties involved and made it beyond clear to everyone that they're not going to let this go until he's hit with a 35 year sentence and a enough fines to bankrupt his family (estimated, another million).
This was in no way a legitimate legal case. They went out of their way to make an example out of this guy and get rid of him and sadly he didn't have the capacity to cope (or escape to China and then do it all again x50 for their government which I would have done in a goddamn instant, had America pulled this on me).
Kate Blake 50+
george lockwood 30+
Fritzie Reisner 100+
This is another one of those cases that shines a spotlight on the tragedy of mental health issues, even among the privileged.
Julie Ann 10+
Fritzie Reisner 100+
Julie Ann 10+
Fritzie Reisner 100+
In terms of the second, I think there is a tremendous benefit to the world of sound research and scholarship, that requiring active scholars to engage in lengthy conversations about their work with those who cannot begin to understand it is inefficient and distracts them from more socially beneficial uses of their time, and that I value that there are some places that can reliably separate the sound and high quality material from the sloppy and the bunk.
It is too time consuming for everyone to sift through individually, and many people do not have the skills to distinguish immediately neuroscience from neurobunk (see Molly Crockett's recent TED talk on neurobunk), quantum physics from quantum bunk (we sorely need a talk on this one!), science, generally speaking, from pseudoscience, valid statistical analysis from wishful thinking or incompetent work... So expert review is of great value to many consumers of scholarly information- not just other scholars.
Julie Ann 10+
Hence, the reviewers would only be qualified persons, but everyone can read the article and the reviews. The fact that the authors need to take time to enter into discussions with experts is a good thing. It not only adds the perspective of other experts but it adds transparency to the process. If there are three authors on the paper, they can take turns dealing with the discussions. It becomes a part of their regular work.
The people who are excluded from the process are journal publishers. As I see it, the quality of work is not compromised but rather enhanced.
Fritzie Reisner 100+
Julie Ann 10+
As an example, it might be helpful to have a look at the site http://www.atmospheric-chemistry-and-physics.net/ for this journal. There is an open review and discussion process, with qualified individuals, that everyone can see. My proposal would use a similar process but within the institution, not necessarily through a journal.
In short, the reviews are done by experts but the original articles, discussions and revised articles are available to everyone.
Sorry - the removed post above was this one - it was just in the wrong place.