In academia, assessment of grant proposals is the forward‐looking review, the laying out and checking of your research plan, while peer reviews in journals are the final, consolidatory scrutiny before publication. An important difference between these academic checkpoints and my, admittedly somewhat forced fashionista analogy, is that in academia the two stages of review take place independently of each other.
Golden OA creates a conflict of interest: in a situation where the number of scientists is larger than the number of available positions, both journals and scientists benefit from publishing as many articles as possible.
For centuries people have been asking, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” Science has not been able to give us an answer so far. We still have to live with the basic statement that “Everything that is is, and it is as long as it keeps its identity, that is, its onticity”, which we may call the “Strong Ontic Principle”.
Researchers propose alternative way to allocate science funding
1. Give all scientists an annual, unconditional fixed amount of funding to conduct their research. 2. All funded scientists are obliged to donate a fixed percentage of all of the funding that they previously received to other researchers: the funding circulates through the community, converging on researchers that are expected to make the best use of it.