Morris Kline Quotes

Unfortunately, there is something of a flaw in this idealized picture of the way the scientific community discovers truth. And the flaw is that most scientific work never gets noticed. Study after study has shown that most scientific papers are read by almost no one, while a small number of papers are read by many people.

I think a lot of journal articles should really be blogs.

As a scholar, you don't want to repeat yourself, ever. You're supposed to say it once, publish it, and then it's published, and you don't say it again. If someone comes and gives a scholarly paper about something they've already published, that's just terrible. As a university president, you have to say the same thing over and over and over.

I don’t know anyone in government who would read the academic journals that policy school professors get rewarded for publishing in.

I like their slogan 'making uncommon knowledge common' very much, but as far as I can tell Elsevier has not mastered this job well. Sci-Hub is helping them to fulfill their mission.

No academic ever expects to be taken seriously by more than three other people, because really, we write for three people in our field.

Bad writing, it is easily verified, has never kept scholarship from being published.

You could write the entire history of science in the last 50 years in terms of papers rejected by Science or Nature.

I suspect that the peer-review system carries a good part of blame for the fact that something like sixty percent or more of journal articles are never quoted (which means leaving no trace on our joint scholarly pursuits), and (in my reception at any rate) the "learned journals" (with a few miraculous exceptions that entail, prominently, TCS) ooze monumental boredom.

Our goal has been to more effectively promote the value of publicly-supported research at our universities, both to the Congress and to the general public.

All my high school papers were written in the rare book room.

Barring some national security concern, I see no valid reason to keep peer-reviewed research from the public. To be clear, by 'peer review,' I mean scientific review and not a political filter.

Simply writing a Ph.D. or academic book was unlikely to play much of a role in helping shape people's lives as I wanted.

Academia does not provide many opportunities for immediate gratification. You work for two years on a project, it takes two more years to get it published, and then you start hoping someone might read it.

I don't think, in my entire 18 years as a student, I ever used an exclamation point in an academic paper.

I perceive Sci-Hub as a practical side of my research.

Six-hundred-page biographies of German theologians aren't known to fly off the shelves.

Elsevier operates by racket: if you do not send money, you will not read any papers. On my website, any person can read as many papers as they want for free, and sending donations is their free will. Why Elsevier cannot work like this, I wonder?

Seriously, I feel more like a revolutionary because the final goal is not only to download all the articles and books and give open access to them, but to change legislation is such a way that free distribution of research papers will not face any legal obstacles.

There is an intellectual snobbery that, regrettably, many academics suffer from. They are proud their paper is only read by a small group of people - makes it very exclusive. Let's get rid of that. If it's truly important, people should be excited about it.

I think that my research is valuable to my teaching. I think that the two complement each other and I'm able to present somewhat more stimulating lectures because of what's happening in research, so it's a good complement.

Sci-Hub always intended to be legal, and advocated for the copyright law to be repealed or changed, so that it will not prohibit the development of science.

I have a simple algorithm, which is, wherever you see paid researchers instead of grad students, that's not where you want to be doing research.

You can't publish a paper on physics without the full experimental data and results; that should be the standard in journalism.

The more important reason is that the research itself provides an important long-run perspective on the issues that we face on a day-to-day basis.