HomeНовости и политикаRelated VideosMore From: ReasonTV

How Open-Access Journals Are Transforming Science

553 ratings | 11166 views
Academic publishers are locking up the latest research behind paywalls and hurting science, says Michael Eisen. We spoke with the co-founder of the Public Library of Science about democratizing scientific progress. Subscribe to our YouTube channel: http://youtube.com/reasontv Like us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Reason.Magazine/ Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/reason Subscribe to our podcast at iTunes: https://goo.gl/az3a7a Reason is the planet's leading source of news, politics, and culture from a libertarian perspective. Go to reason.com for a point of view you won't get from legacy media and old left-right opinion magazines. ---------------- Michael Eisen's goal is to change the way scientific findings are disseminated. Most research papers today are locked behind paywalls, and access can cost hundreds of dollars per article. The general public, and most scientists, don't have comprehensive access to the most up-to-date research, even though much of it is funded by U.S. taxpayers. "It's a completely ridiculous system," says Eisen, an acclaimed biologist at UC Berkeley, an independent candidate for Senate in California running against Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D), and a co-founder of the Public Library of Science, or PLOS, which publishes some of the largest and most prestigious academic journals in the world. These publications stand out for another reason: They're open access, meaning that anyone with an internet connection can read them for free. PLOS seeks to break up the academic publishing cartel, and it's a leading force in the so-called open science movement, which aims to give the public access to cutting-edge research and democratize scientific progress. This movement became widely publicized after famed hacker and Reddit co-founder Aaron Swartz sought to upend the publishing system by uploading millions of articles for free; he was prosecuted relentlessly, and ultimately committed suicide in 2013. Eisen first thought he could simply convince his fellow scientists to start uploading their work, but that didn't work because universities and funding agencies use journals as a proxy for quality. They base tenure and award decisions in large part on how many articles a researcher publishes, and on the reputations of the publishers. To encourage a switch in researchers' thinking, PLOS's first journal, PLOS Biology, attempted to emulate what Eisen describes as the "snooty" journals such as Science and Nature, which generate prestige in part by rejecting most submitted papers. PLOS Biology became well regarded and provided a proof of concept for PLOS's model, in which funding agencies or universities pay a flat fee up front (typically $1,500, but adjusted based on ability to pay) that's then made accessible for free. The multidisciplinary journal PLOS ONE, created in 2006, used this same model to become the largest academic publication in the world, though it's been surpassed by other open access sources. PLOS ONE puts papers through a fairly typical peer review process, but it doesn't ask editors to determine a paper's importance; the journal will publish any study that follows sound science and reports its data. According to Eisen, this model encourages more thorough experiments, rather than flashy results that aren't reproducible, and allows readers to determine whether a particular study is important and valid. Reason spoke with Eisen at the BioHack the Planet Conference in Oakland, a gathering for DIY scientists known as biohackers who eschew traditional research institutions. They often carry out experiments in garage labs and share their raw findings on the internet in real time, a publishing model to which Eisen believes all scientists should aspire. Eisen also discussed why scientists and universities continue to prop up the academic publishing monopoly, how scientific progress suffers from the current regime, why he's running for senate as an independent, why he beleives political parties are obsolete, and the way forward for the open science movement. Produced by Justin Monticello. Cameras by Alexis Garcia and Monticello. Music by Silent Partner (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ha94-6CQdo0), Vibe Tracks (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-fPJLhcato), and MK2 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2GRv3HYpoU).
Html code for embedding videos on your blog
Text Comments (90)
Andy Kline (9 months ago)
Plos charges money for info that should be free to the public..So this guys good?...but Aaron Swartz was a criminal?...what a joke...government denies us access to any of this guarded science info (even if it benefits us) to keep us from finding out how much they've lied to us!!!...It's bullshit!!!!...and we can't do anything about it!...Too bad researchers have no choice but to go to assholes like this to public their work...fuuuuuckin joke!!!!!...they only charge people if they have money?..he says if some single researcher with no money can publish for free...but if you have spent money or have backing for your research you get charged??...PLOS should be shit down if you ask me...oh and no surprise this the if wants to run for office this year...he wants to tackle climate change?...there's no such thing...climate has always changed...how about tackle Weather Geoengineering or Weather manipulation...but he won't do that, cuz he's from the homeland
Gregory Van Der Mewve (1 year ago)
Good video
John C (1 year ago)
One problem with a growing number of open source review journals is theyre having "scientist" pay some amount of money to be published as if their work is valid without consultation of any working scientist about the validity or work within. Why this is dangerous to the scientific world is that fake science can be published and cited by people pushing propaganda in our goverment etc and saying this is in a scientific journal.
Tad Meister (1 year ago)
Brian Ronan (1 year ago)
Interesting video, but I'd like to clarify the description of the differences in the peer-review process between open access journals and traditional journals. Peer-review in specific paid journals is done by scientists who are expert in the field of the article being published. Open-access journals do not have experts in every field to verify the validity of the data published, so their peer-review process is necessarily less rigorous. Other good points were made about the value of open access journals in the video however, especially for providing a platform for valuable, unsupported science.
BigSmartArmed (1 year ago)
Entire system is corrupt beyond repair, only a system wide purge can flush out the Zionist-Marxist.
Levi Johnson (1 year ago)
Apparently this guy missed Economics 101. Whatever you incentivize, people will start doing. Since there is such a strong incentive for researchers to produce research findings, because people pay for it, there is a strong incentive for researchers to continue doing it. Doing things for public charity is nice, but it's not money.
EGarrett01 (1 year ago)
Started out awesome, then it turned to shit when the guy started pushing green communism, then it went back to awesome when the interviewer started subtly calling him out on his BS. I was wondering how he was saying this shit to someone from ReasonTV.
Tuy Yiut (1 year ago)
Youtube/Facebook/Instagram/Twitter/Soundcloud Services for Sale Youtube Video VIEW for Sale( 10000 Views for 11$) Youtube Video LIKE for Sale( 1000 Likes for 3$) YouTube Subscribers For Sale( 1000 Subscribers for 20$) Instagram Followers for Sale( 1000 Followers for 3$) Instagram Likes for Sale( 1000 Likes for 1$) Twitter Followers for Sale( 1000 Followers for 2$) Soundcloud Followers for Sale( 1000 Followers for 3$) Facebook Fanpage Likes for Sale( 1000 Likes for 3$) NOTICE: THIS SERVICE IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR INDIA AND PAKISTAN If u want to BUY Contact me Skype: [email protected],,com or Email me [email protected],,com WhatsApp Number +8801680470492 Payment Paypal/Creditcard NO FREE SERVICE OR DEMO WILL BE GIVEN BEFORE PAYMENT(For demo Invest 1$ to Test if This Service is legit or not) gKoxnl_STPw
森 太翔 (1 year ago)
Peer review is a license for publishing your findings. The idea of license is so that the elite or a special group can have no competition. Modern science today is not concerned with science but prestige and status. This is not science, and this is not how science is done.
und_ed (1 year ago)
What the interviewer has not mentioned (and is imo negligent for not tackling) is the problem of "predatory journals". So many f the open-access journals are not properly peer-reviewed, and simply spam people looking for content to charge researchers to publish. No reputable institution will credit such publications, and a habit of publishing in such locations will actively harm a researcher's career. For open-access journals to gain any real traction the problem of predatory journals needs to be tackled. If anything this has become worse over time instead of better, as harassment from these parasites has led to shutting of resources to differentiate predatory from non-predatory publications such as Beall's list.
Grand1Admiral (1 year ago)
Yea that is one thing that was irritating when doing research
Bernhard Jordan (1 year ago)
I wish for the journal of experimental review, just revalidation , and revalidation is a great way to train students to become scientists
Sven Meier (1 year ago)
those libertarians want to excess everything for free. they dont want to pay for it. this sense of entitlement though.
Bhedraj (1 year ago)
People hate Middle man not because he is making money but mostly middle man creates monopoly or oligarchy and control the flow and go after anyone who try to bypass them.
Akato (1 year ago)
Oh wow, access to verified, open information is revolutionizing the world. The written press you say ? The same concept you say ? And it only took us a shit ton of time you say ? .... xD
im Clever Artist Name (1 year ago)
The interviewer loves seeing cuts of his reactions while the guest speaks.
Samieseeker (1 year ago)
Disappointed that someone who claims to be freeing science hasn't yet learned that the greenhouse effect is over stated (to say the least), that Co2 is good for plants, and that the onset of the current solar grand minimum (Eddy minimum) is what is directly causing the current climate event's....which happen to be a repeat of past grand minimums.... Instead he's still convinced by the bad science around Co2, and is willing to spend millions of tax dollars on trapping the very molecule plants need for photosynthesis, in order to make zero difference to climate change. I sure won't be voting for him!
Samieseeker (1 year ago)
Opps, the start of my comment was deleted...what I was saying was that I love it when someone wants me to prove an entire established field of scientific discovery, in a social media comments section.
Teghan Nightengale (1 year ago)
Would you be able to provide a citation for the "solar grand minimum" effect you are referencing?
Kiiro Sagi (1 year ago)
Non-subsidised scientists have the right to make a profit of their findings.
Climate? Oh dear
G.G. (1 year ago)
Liberty&Nonintervention Yeah he's part of the conspiracy to be alble to sell fucking solarpanels and therefore take over the world.
There're a lot of open access journals by the way. A good reason to publish on them is it means more people read it. Which is the point.
POKIE JACKSON (1 year ago)
Open-Source... This is not complicated. If you want a problem solved... let everyone on the planet have a go...
deuteriumjones (1 year ago)
Christopher Hitchens said he became a journalist so he wouldn't have to trust the news to tell him the real story. That's why I became a scientist.
Eukatae (1 year ago)
Another winner from Reason. You can smell the sarcasm, right?
abram galler (1 year ago)
Nothing the government spends money on is investment.
abram galler (1 year ago)
You are dealing in a false absolute, government subsidy is not investment.In point of fact the internet was delayed by the government and the computer industry received little subsidy.
abram galler (1 year ago)
The implied lie in using the word "investment" connected to government subsidy is that there is some sureness of positive results whereas the sureness is negative .Taxes cause damage ,projects like the Arpanet delaying the internet by twenty years, the costs are not controlled ,and the protocols are compromised to maximize the subsidies.
G.G. (1 year ago)
You're dealing in absolutes. Computers and the internet prove you false. "These projects are expensive because subsidies are available" These projects are expensive because they're monolithic. Going to space, not to mention the moon is *not* expensive because there are enough subsidies, but because it's objectively difficult for humans to attain escape velocity.
abram galler (1 year ago)
The entities that get the government subsidies end working exclusively for the subsidies and are apathetic any other goals.
G.G. (1 year ago)
abram galler I don't think I fully understand your comment.
don bleck (1 year ago)
Government has alot of money? ROFL its the peoples money stolen from the government also it has more debt than any institution on the planet!
Matt 1104 (1 year ago)
This interviewer's nods are hilarious
orochimarujes (1 year ago)
IvanAndreevich (1 year ago)
Ready any journal for free by using sci-hub.cc (sci-hub.ac) if those are down, use the Tor browser to access sci-hub through this link - http://scihub22266oqcxt.onion/
German Carranza (1 year ago)
IvanAndreevich Could you use the wayback machine on these sites?
AT Fly (1 year ago)
He wouldn't win as a republican in California that's why he runs as independent
OMGWERDOOMED (1 year ago)
Dr. Alvin Weinberg, director of Oak Ridge National Lab, invented his preferred civilian nuclear reactor for passive safety at low pressures. Search Molten Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE).
George Applegate (1 year ago)
Government research grants should forbid publication of research in only paywalled journals. Journals like Nature and Science require that submissions not be available to the public. That must end.
Rob F (3 months ago)
Get government out all together
LibertarianJRT (1 year ago)
George Applegate sounds like the perfect rider on a budget bill
Brad Bush (1 year ago)
"The government has a lot of money" WRONG. The government has NO money. It has our money and has already spent our childrens money. "The government does everything wrong but if the government does it my way it will work." Just another liberal hungry for money and power.
Rob F (3 months ago)
abram galler (1 year ago)
That's reasonable.
Ysdom (1 year ago)
They shouldn't really be involved, unless it is for defense or space research. The university system takes care of all the public domain fields of study already. Intellectual property laws should be changed as well. A much shorter period would be more reasonable.
abram galler (1 year ago)
It should be obvious ,but isn't .
German Carranza (1 year ago)
Delilah Ellison Gee I bet libertarians argue that the government shouldn't be involved in research... I think it has something to do with the government sucking and the free market being way better?
German Carranza (1 year ago)
This guys said that political parties are bad but he also said that people "should form coalitions around ideas". I'm so confused lol...
Brentjr94 (1 year ago)
Some people will be single issue voters regardless of whether they belong to a traditional political party or a number or "idea coalitions". Nothing will change that.
German Carranza (1 year ago)
Brentjr94 So your idea coalitions would be single voting issue parties? Like the Marijuana party?
German Carranza (1 year ago)
Kevin Jean I'm not defending them lol. All I want to know is what would be the difference if you started an idea coalitions and why it wouldn't end up as our modern day political parties. Also how do the parties blackmail us?
Brentjr94 (1 year ago)
It would seem to me, and this is partially an assumption, that the phrase "idea coalitions" means by definition that the people in them will have formed their ideas based on nuanced thought, evidence, and be willing to accept alternative ideas. Now, this could of course collapse and transgress into something similar to what our current main political parties represent. However, if "idea coalitions" differ from political parties in that they are much larger in number and much more focused in their individual interests and objectives, then they may not collapse. If I were to be a member of numerous idea coalitions instead of simply one political party, that could have the effect of detoxifying our political culture and eliminating some tribalism. However, your skepticism is warranted.
Kevin Jean (1 year ago)
Political parties as a term is an abstraction from what we have. What we have has very close to zero accountability to us and gets to skate around doing their job by blackmailing us. I'm not sure why you would defend any of the parties in power in the United States of America.
German Carranza (1 year ago)
Regulations always make things worst. If you don't like something about society than use the free market to change it. Persuade people to change but don't dare to use the government to make things worst and take our freedoms away.
BwoolyPyu (1 year ago)
Hawksm278 not particularly. It still makes way for overreach and generally rushed decisions with unfortunate consequences.
Hawksm278 (1 year ago)
German Carranza It doesn't make things worse in regard to the environment though with basic regualtion on things like water, air, and solid pollution. Yea it has some downside, but isn't the upside much better for this case in particular?
Simon Banks (1 year ago)
The problem is ultimately here's no reason people will stop using the 'journal cartels' unless it's legislated because can't a journal just start to pay royalties to the researchers who also want the prestige of publishing in a journal that is selective? I can't see a way around that because just trying to slander the big journal cartels won't do shit just like slandering a news organisation etc, people still watch them even though everyone hates them You can tell this guy is a politician without him having to say, he's good at offering solutions that don't tackle the problem. That said I guess PLOS is very good
German Carranza (1 year ago)
Simon Banks He said 20% or 30% of all papers are being published in his free journal. His persuasion is working lol. Regulations always make things worst and they restrict your freedom. Just use the free market to change something you don't like lol.
Ultra (1 year ago)
The problem is the grant funding; how do you justify your grants? "Look at where I published..."
Ultra (1 year ago)
Brentjr94 sadly that is the culture, want a faculty position? Where did you publish, which uni did you come from...
Brentjr94 (1 year ago)
It is up to those seeking grant funding to express the idea that "Look where I published" may not be the most accurate measurement of their competency as a scientist.
Phone User (1 year ago)
Reason = SJW Liberals.
G.G. (1 year ago)
Phone user. Oh my fucking god. Is this the image you want to give libertarians? A guy who calls everyone a communist in order to ad hominem them.
RocketmanRockyMatrix (1 year ago)
Phone User troll
Santiago Bron (1 year ago)
+Phone User I bet you call everyone you don't like SJWs/liberals/communists
Ferrule Bezel (1 year ago)
This guy is a scary wannabe technocrat.
Brentjr94 (1 year ago)
It'll work this time if only our computers are good enough to centrally plan the economy. I promise.
Adam Spencer (1 year ago)
I keep my university e-mail account so access this stuff. Lucky for me duke university is in the same city
QE ornotQE (1 year ago)
Elsevier is one of the main science publishing companies. Most of its literature is behind a paywall.
Adam Billman (1 year ago)
nothing more heart breaking than reading an abstract of exactly what you are looking for, and finding out it's behind a $35 paywall. I say screw these people.
Ferrule Bezel (1 year ago)
Time to bomb the Netherlands.
Josh Kruschke (1 year ago)
He takes his assumption as fact....
Josh Kruschke (1 year ago)
Negative results are the purpose of the Scientific Method. Test to destruction. The purpose is to find the flaws or in our theories not prove ourselves right.
Zack Abnet (1 year ago)
College student here - our students government just meet with other SG groups throughout texas so we can get public funding for open access textbooks. I am a small l libertarian because there are certain things that the private sector is annoying at. Never open access means more competition in the market driving down prices
G.G. (1 year ago)
I all for open scientific papers, I'm all for consumer rights through regulation and for net neutrality. People who think that their cookie cutter ideology can be used everywhere have a too simple approach to reality.
hogensan (1 year ago)
Most public financed.
Commie Spy (1 year ago)
I love your videos!

Would you like to comment?

Join YouTube for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.