I'm not concerned about revenue. I'm concerned about what Science/AAAS are willing to do to protect that revenue. For decades they have chosen to go against their own mission of advancing science - by stifling innovation in publishing - for no other reason than to ensure the money keeps rolling in.
Their publishing revenue exceeded $70m last year. If they had supported change that $70m - and the billions we spend elsewhere in the system - would support orders of magnitude more good than their grants and advocacy do.
Any positive contributions from their science advocacy are offset 100 fold by their continued propping up of an expensive, inaccessible and dysfunctional publishing system.
They could have tried even one iota to fix even one of the dysfunctional things in science publishing. Yet instead of using their revenue surpluses to do *ANYTHING* risky or innovative, they have been fierce defenders of the status quo and have wielded their power to stifle innovation elsewhere.
Sorry, but this is hogwash. The reason nobody talks about Science being a non-profit is that it has for decades behaved in a way that is indistinguishable from its for-profit brethren. If they want to be known as a non-profit, they should act like one. www.science.org/doi/10.1126/...
Science is fortunate that so many authors seek to publish with us. We shoulder enormous responsibility from both our outsized influence on research across many fields and from the journal's impact on ...
I tried requesting and was told they were too busy, etc, etc …
It’s not public.
Are there good open-source collections of annotated bird calls that can be downloaded in bulk for training models? They all seem closed/difficult to access.
We went down the path of this (including beginning to IRB process to allow us to publish the findings) but it got derailed by COVID. Having everything preprinted before review makes it more challenging to blind, but we’ve been discussing how to reboot this.