I started off not liking this post at all, but then warmed to it towards the end: https://retractionwatch.com/2024/10/21/reflecting-on-research-misconduct-whats-next-for-the-watcher-community/

I think the main gist is that science may operate in a way that is different from the way some people think it operates and if that is the case, does what you do have the affect you think it is going to have? I think that’s what the article is saying.

There is one paragraph that I disagree with:

Within this rhetorical context, open-access publishing has traded originality for affordability. Such publication “opportunities” have disadvantaged many younger scientists/scholars and those at institutions without the wherewithal and infrastructure to contribute and compete. Then there are the now-exacerbated normal biases – unconscious and conscious – that can favor article rejection over acceptance while subordinating science content to assumed author attributes (gender, race, academic pedigree). The stakes have never been higher.

This seems to imply that before open access such scholars were not disadvantaged. I disagree. There was always a cost and always richer and poorer institutions. My view is that open access has unveiled more of the pre-existing inequality.

The following paragraph is good:

As I understand more about the costs in our system, and the scale of the underlying players, I am increasingly puzzled by the adversarial nature of the debate.

research misconduct, open-access publishing, science policy, inequality in science, stakeholder relationships, academic publishing, scientific debate

Linked Text: The blog post linked discusses the discrepancies in how people perceive the functioning of science and how it actually operates, posing the question of whether actions taken based on these perceptions lead to anticipated effects. It critiques the impact of open-access publishing, suggesting it unintentionally exacerbates biases and inequalities in academia, though the author personally believes these issues existed prior to open access. The post highlights the critical role of stakeholders—publishers, editors, and funding agencies—and questions why competitive dynamics prevail over collaboration in academic publishing.

Chinese: 这篇博文探讨了人们对科学运作方式的看法与其实际运作间的差异，并提出了在此基础上采取的行动是否能带来预期效果的问题。它批评了开放获取出版的影响，称尽管作者个人认为这一问题早已存在，但开放获取无意中加剧了学术界的偏见和不平等。文章强调了利益相关者——出版商、编辑和资助机构——的重要角色，并质疑为何学术出版领域的竞争态势胜过合作。

German: Der Blogbeitrag befasst sich mit den Diskrepanzen zwischen der Wahrnehmung, wie Wissenschaft funktioniert, und ihrer tatsächlichen Funktionsweise und stellt die Frage, ob auf dieser Grundlage getroffene Maßnahmen die erwarteten Auswirkungen haben. Er kritisiert die Auswirkungen des Open-Access-Publishings und legt nahe, dass es ungewollt Vorurteile und Ungleichheiten in der Wissenschaft verstärkt, obwohl der Autor persönlich glaubt, dass diese Probleme vor dem Open Access existierten. Der Beitrag hebt die entscheidende Rolle der Interessengruppen - Verleger, Redakteure und Förderagenturen - hervor und fragt sich, warum im wissenschaftlichen Verlagswesen Wettbewerbsdynamiken eher als Zusammenarbeit vorherrschen.

Spanish: La publicación del blog vinculada discute las discrepancias en cómo las personas perciben el funcionamiento de la ciencia y cómo realmente opera, planteando la pregunta de si las acciones tomadas en base a estas percepciones conducen a efectos anticipados. Critica el impacto de la publicación de acceso abierto, sugiriendo que exacerba sin intención los sesgos y desigualdades en el ámbito académico, aunque el autor personalmente cree que estos problemas existían antes del acceso abierto. El post destaca el papel crítico de las partes interesadas: editoriales, editores y agencias de financiación, y cuestiona por qué predominan las dinámicas competitivas sobre la colaboración en la publicación académica.