James Lyons-Weiler/Mathew Crawford and a few others are talking about a new robust format for Peer review that stops the current bias that has overtaken the system. No Pharma sponsorship would be allowed. And possibly, put on the blockchain so it can't be removed from history or corrupted or altered by other parties in future to cover up things.
This should be outrageous but sadly isn't. What on earth is the 'accepted narrative' - imagine all the things we would have missed out on if researchers were not allowed to challenge the orthodoxy? Keep up the great work - you are true hero's (and heroines). In time the majority of society will look back at you and judge you favourably. Bravo!
God forbid anyone challenge 'accepted' public health measures. Accepted by whom I wonder, and for what reasons? I mean, we all know for certain that 'accepted' = proven best practice, don't we? Otherwise it wouldn't be 'accepted' and it would not be deemed unchallengeable by those doing the accepting. Good grief. What a sham, a complete farce, not to mention a clear and present danger to public health and legitimate science.
Everything part of science publishing is captured, apart from (at least for now) substack, and designed to maintain a false sense of consensus. By publishing your work here, it will hopefully get to a much wider audience than publishing on pre-print servers, and you get a much better class of peer review via the comments section. In a sense, all substack articles are peer reivewed!
I wonder if one can make a small financial contribution, with no "contributor benefits" requested. I can't send the minimal amount for a year's subscription. Thank you for sharing your work to all, financial supporters and otherwise.
The founders of Frontiers (Markrams) love pretending they are bringing in an era of scientific freedom by making access to papers free, but this ignores the gatekeeping effect of the peer review process and this aspect you are demonstrating here.
See J.J. Couey's breakdown of Kamila Markram's talk from 2018 here (starting about 1:09:30), where she talks about how the journal Frontiers is shepherding in an era of "exponential innovation" and knowledge (and profitability) by using AI and NGOs and philanthropists:
Something tells me her business model will have the appearance of Democratic and open science, but will simply be more gatekeeping by the Bill Gates set.
So now you just have to convince Elon Musk to buy one of them or set up his own. I'm currently thinking he also needs to buy a major mainstream newspaper! (Yes, I know he's not much better but he seems to agree with the idea of publish and be damned)
Many thanks for your much needed pro bono service.
Have a happy Christmas and best for 2023!
We need you to be match-fit for 2023 :)
Sydney, Australia
Sadly researchgate have censored, certainly in the past as Denis rancourt certainly has experienced.
Hmm.
Nature abhors a vacuum.
I wonder if the supply of quality research papers censored by the two websites exceeds the demand for crap, bogus research papers?
After all, you can post pre-prints anywhere and allow feedback. What's so special about these two?
A few tweets and they are toast! Kidding, but you get my drift.
This is insane. We will have to set up parallel sites that do not censor.
James Lyons-Weiler/Mathew Crawford and a few others are talking about a new robust format for Peer review that stops the current bias that has overtaken the system. No Pharma sponsorship would be allowed. And possibly, put on the blockchain so it can't be removed from history or corrupted or altered by other parties in future to cover up things.
This should be outrageous but sadly isn't. What on earth is the 'accepted narrative' - imagine all the things we would have missed out on if researchers were not allowed to challenge the orthodoxy? Keep up the great work - you are true hero's (and heroines). In time the majority of society will look back at you and judge you favourably. Bravo!
God forbid anyone challenge 'accepted' public health measures. Accepted by whom I wonder, and for what reasons? I mean, we all know for certain that 'accepted' = proven best practice, don't we? Otherwise it wouldn't be 'accepted' and it would not be deemed unchallengeable by those doing the accepting. Good grief. What a sham, a complete farce, not to mention a clear and present danger to public health and legitimate science.
Everything part of science publishing is captured, apart from (at least for now) substack, and designed to maintain a false sense of consensus. By publishing your work here, it will hopefully get to a much wider audience than publishing on pre-print servers, and you get a much better class of peer review via the comments section. In a sense, all substack articles are peer reivewed!
I wonder if one can make a small financial contribution, with no "contributor benefits" requested. I can't send the minimal amount for a year's subscription. Thank you for sharing your work to all, financial supporters and otherwise.
The founders of Frontiers (Markrams) love pretending they are bringing in an era of scientific freedom by making access to papers free, but this ignores the gatekeeping effect of the peer review process and this aspect you are demonstrating here.
See J.J. Couey's breakdown of Kamila Markram's talk from 2018 here (starting about 1:09:30), where she talks about how the journal Frontiers is shepherding in an era of "exponential innovation" and knowledge (and profitability) by using AI and NGOs and philanthropists:
https://m.twitch.tv/videos/1691187225
Something tells me her business model will have the appearance of Democratic and open science, but will simply be more gatekeeping by the Bill Gates set.
https://www.frontiersfoundation.org/donors
https://www.frontiersin.org/about/institutional-partnerships (notice the number of German partners)
So now you just have to convince Elon Musk to buy one of them or set up his own. I'm currently thinking he also needs to buy a major mainstream newspaper! (Yes, I know he's not much better but he seems to agree with the idea of publish and be damned)