Post by account_disabled on Mar 11, 2024 5:03:43 GMT
Prof GOLD recalled that the IP regime does not work in certain areas, such as antibiotics resistance, rare diseases, and diseases, because there is too much uncertainty in the market. Thus, he argued that we need alternative models, which are more collaborative and have a multi-stakeholder approach to innovation. Based on this, I have proposed that in areas for which traditionally we have relied on IP we should consider open science as a way for commercial possibilities. . CASO stated that in order to deeply investigate the relationships between open science and IP it is necessary to take into account other incentives. For instance, the incentive of young and established researchers in terms of research evaluation. As regards incentives to other forms of cooperation and collaboration environments rather than competition, he mentioned that the current debate at the EU level is on the amendment to the research evaluation. This would take into account other metrics rather than publications, such as the cooperation among scientists to give society the results. The research environment should support this approach. . CABAY considered that other results rather than publications should be considered, such as interdisciplinarity or relying on international networks.
The problem with the incentives of the current system is that any researcher has to start with the state of the art, but he/she might not have access to publications. This puts researchers from different geographical areas at different levels or opportunities. Prof GOLD added that young generations are more in of open science. He believes that it brings opportunities, reputation, networks, and visibility. What are the disincentives: what should not be done? . CASO argued that the most relevant disincentive is the research assessment based on individuality and that the bibliometric is based on this idea. He added that the history of science teaches us that science is a cooperative , so if we teach Phone Number List researchers that they have to publish as a single author they have a higher ranking, this is the opposite of open science. He added that the control of the infrastructure is another issue. The public sector should not let only the private sector or big tech control the science communication system. He recalled paradox and assertions that there is no rationale in the copyright transfer agreement to the publisher without monetary compensation.
If we want to defend our academic freedom, we must imagine a sort of secondary publication or communication right in order to achieve open access as authors. Prof GOLD asserted that in the publishing sector model the author must waive the copyright and will even pay for having the work disseminated to all people, without getting money, although the author will probably pay more without the copyright system. This is the opposite that we can find in the patent system, where payment is done for having an exclusive right subject to dissemination. In this case, not all is disseminated: for example, clinical trial that does not contribute to the patent. So, we created an atmosphere where we all collectively pay higher prices to access pieces of knowledge. Several companies investing in research and having negative results do not share them so all this investment is wasted because we have chosen a system based on secrecy with limited sharing. Open science is not just bad publications but also the method and process in science, selection of projects, etc. How does the interaction between IP and secrecy rights and the business model interfere with the process of science, beyond just academic publishing? Beyond the open publication, where else does open science become an important tool for advancing the process of science.
The problem with the incentives of the current system is that any researcher has to start with the state of the art, but he/she might not have access to publications. This puts researchers from different geographical areas at different levels or opportunities. Prof GOLD added that young generations are more in of open science. He believes that it brings opportunities, reputation, networks, and visibility. What are the disincentives: what should not be done? . CASO argued that the most relevant disincentive is the research assessment based on individuality and that the bibliometric is based on this idea. He added that the history of science teaches us that science is a cooperative , so if we teach Phone Number List researchers that they have to publish as a single author they have a higher ranking, this is the opposite of open science. He added that the control of the infrastructure is another issue. The public sector should not let only the private sector or big tech control the science communication system. He recalled paradox and assertions that there is no rationale in the copyright transfer agreement to the publisher without monetary compensation.
If we want to defend our academic freedom, we must imagine a sort of secondary publication or communication right in order to achieve open access as authors. Prof GOLD asserted that in the publishing sector model the author must waive the copyright and will even pay for having the work disseminated to all people, without getting money, although the author will probably pay more without the copyright system. This is the opposite that we can find in the patent system, where payment is done for having an exclusive right subject to dissemination. In this case, not all is disseminated: for example, clinical trial that does not contribute to the patent. So, we created an atmosphere where we all collectively pay higher prices to access pieces of knowledge. Several companies investing in research and having negative results do not share them so all this investment is wasted because we have chosen a system based on secrecy with limited sharing. Open science is not just bad publications but also the method and process in science, selection of projects, etc. How does the interaction between IP and secrecy rights and the business model interfere with the process of science, beyond just academic publishing? Beyond the open publication, where else does open science become an important tool for advancing the process of science.