BLUE
Login
SC
Sophia Crüwell
@cruwelli.bsky.social
Philosophy of Science @ Cambridge HPS / Metaresearch / ReproducibiliTea cruwell.com
395 followers263 following39 posts
OverviewPostsReplies
Reposted by Sophia Crüwell
Smehr.nz

this is pretty amazing: @lucinauddin.bsky.socialwww.lieffcabraser.com/antitrust/ac... summary of the case:

The Publisher Defendants’ Scheme has three primary components. First, the Publisher Defendants agreed to not compensate scholars for their labor, in particular not to pay for their peer review services (the “Unpaid Peer Review Rule”). In other words, the Publisher Defendants agreed to fix the price of peer review services at zero. The Publisher Defendants also agreed to coerce scholars into providing their labor for nothing by expressly linking their unpaid labor with their ability to get their manuscripts published in the Publisher Defendants’ journals. In the “publish or perish” world of academia, the Publisher Defendants essentially agreed to hold the careers of scholars hostage so that the Publisher Defendants could force them to provide their valuable labor for free.
Second, the Publisher Defendants agreed not to compete with each other for manuscripts by requiring scholars to submit their manuscripts to only one journal at a time (the “Single Submission Rule”). The Single Submission Rule substantially reduces competition among the Publisher Defendants, substantially decreasing incentives to review manuscripts promptly and publish meritorious research quickly. The Single Submission Rule also robs scholars of negotiating leverage they otherwise would have had if more than one journal offered to publish their manuscripts. Thus, the Publisher Defendants know that if they offer to publish a manuscript, the submitting scholar has no viable alternative and the Publisher Defendant can then dictate the terms of publication.
Third, the Publisher Defendants agreed to prohibit scholars from freely sharing the scientific advancements described in submitted manuscripts while those manuscripts are under peer review, a process that often takes over a year (the “Gag Rule”). From the moment scholars submit manuscripts for publication, the Publisher Defendants behave as though the scientific advancements set forth in the manuscripts are their property, to be shared only if the Publisher Defendants grant permission. Moreover, when the Publisher Defendants select manuscripts for publication, the Publisher Defendants will often require scholars to sign away all intellectual property rights, in exchange for nothing. The manuscripts then become the actual property of the Publisher Defendants, and the Publisher Defendants charge the maximum the market will bear for access to that scientific knowledge.
11
Reposted by Sophia Crüwell
ABsmellosopher.bsky.social

Soon forthcoming in PNAS! The present and future of peer review: Ideas, interventions, and evidence (Possibly impossible to identify the section that was contributed by the Feyerabendian philosopher of science. 😶‍🌫️)

1
Reposted by Sophia Crüwell
KTlibrarykirsten.bsky.social

Alternatives to Google Scholar which are free to use and take an open research approach: Three I've come across are The Lens (www.lens.org@matilda-science.bsky.socialopenalex.org) There may be others too, would be interested to hear about them!

5
Reposted by Sophia Crüwell
MEmalte.the100.ci

CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS! Send your abstract for a poster, talk, workshop, or other (surprise us!) to the 7th Perspectives on Scientific Error workshop, Feb 5-7 2025 in Bern, Switzerland. Submission deadline: September 20. errorsin.science

7th Perspectives on Scientific Error Workshop
7th Perspectives on Scientific Error Workshop

Save the date: PSE7 will take place on February 5-7, 2025 in Bern, Switzerland.

0
Reposted by Sophia Crüwell
AAannaalexandrova.bsky.social

Resharing in the hope of submissions from the fresh bsky citizens #philsci#histsci#philsky#STS

AAannaalexandrova.bsky.social

Martin Kusch of Vienna and I are editing a special issue of Studies in HPS entitled "Are Social Sciences Special?". We are interested in both history and philosophy essays, see the link for the framing and instructions for how to submit. Deadline is Sept 30th 2024 #philsci #histsci #philsky #STS

2
SCcruwelli.bsky.social

lol I just logged onto bluesky for the first time in 4 maybe 5 months? What’s happening now 😂

0
Reposted by Sophia Crüwell
MNmichelenuijten.bsky.social

Ok I'm a million years late to the party, but I finally found my way to bluesky! ✋ Hi! I'm Michèle, a meta-scientist interested in statistical errors & improving overall robustness of psychological science. 🙏 If anyone has tips to build up my network here, please let me know!

8
Reposted by Sophia Crüwell
THtomhardwicke.bsky.social

Recordings of the Royal Society Meeting on the Promises and Pitfalls of Preregistration are up. Day 1: www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNb2...www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZPh...

2
Reposted by Sophia Crüwell
DBdeevybee.bsky.social

Draft programme and abstracts for Mar 4-5 discussion meeting on Preregistration in Scientific Research - see here docs.google.com/document/d/1... At Royal Society, London. Free registration! Will be fun.

1
SCcruwelli.bsky.social

Thank you! And I love that extension of the magic analogy ✨

0
SC
Sophia Crüwell
@cruwelli.bsky.social
Philosophy of Science @ Cambridge HPS / Metaresearch / ReproducibiliTea cruwell.com
395 followers263 following39 posts
HomePopularExplore