Probably won’t take off because scientists need reputable journals and not some random fediverse publishers.
Is it fucked up? Absolutely. But something else needs to be changed before this would be possible.
Also, why not ditch the concept of a “publisher” to begin with? Why not have a national or international article index, graded by the article level? It’s not that we live in a paper era, and for those who still need it, we can always print.
Institutions could easily form their own journals. National organizations that provide grants could also require you to publish in their journal. Universities can run their own journals. These sorts of entities already exist and provide article access for free, publishing in them would just need to be normalized.
These are just a few options without researchers organizing anything for themselves.
Fair enough, though why should journals even be a thing? Why not just university publishing papers online as soon as they are accepted?
Currently we already have this thing with some journals publishing online the articles that are meant for future issues, which fucks up citations quite a bit. Why not just ditch the entire “journal” format altogether?
I was kind of thinking of that with the institutional journal bit. It doesn’t need to be a traditional journal, the only things important to me are:
peer review (skip #2)
open access
professional editors to help improve phrasing, spelling, flow, etc.
DOI link or similar unique identifier
I’m totally down to ditch the traditional journal format otherwise. It was just a quick comment not meant to go in-depth, but point out that we already have public institutions that can host publications.
Well, we could assign the reviewers more “significance” here.
We could give them points and if they “upvote” a paper it gives the paper a bit more visibility/reputation. If the reviewer has actually reviewed the paper it gives the paper more points.
How much a reviewer is able to “spend” could be based on the reputation of the institution, their own papers in the same field and the points they get for their reviews by other users.
If we build a decentralized system for paper publishing, like lemmy based on activitypub… will it work?
Probably won’t take off because scientists need reputable journals and not some random fediverse publishers.
Is it fucked up? Absolutely. But something else needs to be changed before this would be possible.
Also, why not ditch the concept of a “publisher” to begin with? Why not have a national or international article index, graded by the article level? It’s not that we live in a paper era, and for those who still need it, we can always print.
Institutions could easily form their own journals. National organizations that provide grants could also require you to publish in their journal. Universities can run their own journals. These sorts of entities already exist and provide article access for free, publishing in them would just need to be normalized.
These are just a few options without researchers organizing anything for themselves.
Fair enough, though why should journals even be a thing? Why not just university publishing papers online as soon as they are accepted?
Currently we already have this thing with some journals publishing online the articles that are meant for future issues, which fucks up citations quite a bit. Why not just ditch the entire “journal” format altogether?
I was kind of thinking of that with the institutional journal bit. It doesn’t need to be a traditional journal, the only things important to me are:
peer review (skip #2)
open access
professional editors to help improve phrasing, spelling, flow, etc.
DOI link or similar unique identifier
I’m totally down to ditch the traditional journal format otherwise. It was just a quick comment not meant to go in-depth, but point out that we already have public institutions that can host publications.
Exactly, a decentralized platform would only make an index and universities or institutions can maintain their own instances
This I generally approve, if availability is good enough
Well, we could assign the reviewers more “significance” here. We could give them points and if they “upvote” a paper it gives the paper a bit more visibility/reputation. If the reviewer has actually reviewed the paper it gives the paper more points.
How much a reviewer is able to “spend” could be based on the reputation of the institution, their own papers in the same field and the points they get for their reviews by other users.
Just a raw idea,but it seems possible, indeed.