So asserts Tibor Braun and Ildiko Diospatonyl in the March 14 edition of "The Scientist". The key data that they come up with is that while USians are gatekeepers in 54% of the journals, USians only produce 32% of the papers and 35% of the citations.

The Scientist (subscription needed for details)

The authors conclude: "The dominance of the US gatekeepers...is not a conspiracy...but a consequence of the self organizing nature of science. Nothing needs to be done."

Yea right. I love how there are only two choices here: a conspiratorial view, debunked immediately as not worthy of serious consideration, and the authors' own view, without serious analysis, that everything is best in the best of all possible worlds. What a pile. Ah well. I'm sure they've successfully tranquilized many (bourgeois) minds. And that's the main thing, right?

[ 05 April 2005: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

[ 05 April 2005: Message edited by: Surferosad ]

quote:

---

Yea right. I love how there are only two choices here: a conspiratorial view, debunked immediately as not worthy of serious consideration

---

Is it worthy of consideration?

quote:

---

Ah well. I'm sure they've successfully tranquilized many (bourgeois) minds. And that's the main thing, right?

---

You appear to believe it is, since that's exactly what you're hinting at above.

quote:

---

Mr. Magoo: Is your quarrel with the fact that the author presented a conspiracy theory as a possible explanation, or that he promptly sent it to live with all the other conspiracy theories??

---

My quarrel is with the fake dichotomy. Why are the numbers the way they are? "The self organizing nature of science"? wtf?! How about the ownership/control of scientific periodicals? How about some serious analysis? And what about the consequences of the skewed numbers? Whose ideas are more likely to be published in the scientific periodicals? What about the direction of the advancement of science?

But no. Any alternative "explanation" is a "conspiracy" theory. At least that's all the authors see fit to address. And "Science" is self-organizing. What about the business of science ? Nada. So that's that.

quote:

---

What about the business of science ? Nada. So that's that.

---

The whole issue of the relationship between industry and science (especially through the post-secondary institutions), alluded to by Surferosad, is an interesting one to me. To use some (Marxist) jargon, has science become a direct "productive force" and what does that mean in the context of the convergence of industry and academia? And my favourite question here - what other approaches to the development of science are possible in some other social "arrangement", i.e., some other society?

My own work connects me with research scientists and I gotta say that I like the work culture, in the main, that goes with the job. Chemists are a fastidious, meticulous bunch, aren't they?

[ 05 April 2005: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

And my favourite question here - what other approaches to the development of science are possible in some other social "arrangement", i.e., some other society?

---