samuelmoore.org
Researcher at Cambridge University Library/Cambridge Digital Humanities/King's College
PI: Materialising Open Research Practices in the Humanities and Social Sciences (MORPHSS)
Book out soon on OA publishing and the commons
https://www.samuelmoore.org
1,141 posts
2,109 followers
476 following
Prolific Poster
Conversation Starter
comment in response to
post
Happy to disagree and leave it there.
comment in response to
post
Again, this is not a blame issue for me but points to the fact that (as I have said many times) the seemingly apolitical nature of science reform works against the (imo) real issues of labour and collective organisation.
comment in response to
post
Well you have a couple of chief funders of open science (as @jbakcoleman.bsky.social points out) cheering on cuts to government funding in the name of efficiency, so there's an overlap that allows the language of open science to be weaponised in this way.
comment in response to
post
I'm not turning on anyone but pointing to the politics of it all. Completely agree that he would be attacking science in any case but I don't think that takes away from my point.
comment in response to
post
Yeah, I think we could have a big impact by designing spaces for feedback and discussion before a draft/preprint is made public (at least in HSS fields). This might also have the benefit of taking review processes back from journals and encouraging PRC approaches.
comment in response to
post
These structures already exist in some fields where preprints are common, while other fields with larger author groups seem happier to preprint, but for lone authors it can be quite a daunting process. I think this also means that 'preprint' is not a stable term but changes according to discipline.
comment in response to
post
I'm doing some research in this area at the moment. One argument I've heard (and agree with) is that for many authors in HSS fields, preprinting research would be the first time anyone else has read it. I think this points to the need for structured ways of receiving feedback prior to preprinting.
comment in response to
post
Hope both teams lose
comment in response to
post
the samuel shuffle
comment in response to
post
haha yeah, don't get me started on ACS...
comment in response to
post
But then I'm also not sure how many open science proponents would agree with this framing, which is clearly the problem.
comment in response to
post
Similar concerns came up in my recent @openfuture.bsky.social report on AI governance in scholarly communication.
openfuture.eu/publication/...
comment in response to
post
Thank you!
comment in response to
post
Also a pretty good illustration of the fact that the causes of (and solutions to) this type of fraud are complicated and multiple.
comment in response to
post
Haha, fair!
comment in response to
post
I'll mention this to a colleague on Monday, Rupert! I suspect it went through the read and publish deal we have with Wiley but I'm not sure. Thanks for sharing.
comment in response to
post
eLife are one of the few publishers that seriously engage with research cultures issue and design their models accordingly. I always enjoy reading their thoughts on publishing.
comment in response to
post
I bet all these old research buildings they convert into flats will have names like Symposium and Faculty.