For example, the philosophers who were interested in logic were probably rather logical for mathematicians. But the ASL got us together, so we could talk to each other and publish in the same journal.
Laws alone cannot secure freedom of expression; in order that every man present his views without penalty there must be a spirit of tolerance in the entire population.
Part of a larger quote about scientific freedom: see related quote.
In general, science journalism concerns itself with what has been published in a handful of peer-reviewed journals - Nature, Cell, The New England Journal of Medicine - which set the agenda.
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.
While open-access journals have grown rapidly, researchers still have to read the paywalled articles in commercial journals.
It came as a surprise to find that a professional society and journal (Econometrica) were flourishing, and I entered this area of study with great enthusiasm.
I have no trouble publishing in Soviet astrophysical journals, but my work is unacceptable to the American astrophysical journals.
Government research has to go through peer review.
The Internet is a big boon to academic research. Gone are the days spent in dusty library stacks digging for journal articles. Many articles are available free to the public in open-access journal or as preprints on the authors' website.
The Deep Web contains shockingly valuable information. Can you imagine how cancer research would blossom if every researcher had instant access to every research paper done by every single university and research lab in the world?
Science should belong to scientists and not the publishers.
Fewer than half of all university professors publish as much as one article per year.
One of the biggest costs in the whole scientific publishing world is borne by the academic community, which is the peer review.
I've been reading a lot of books on history, and watching a lot of educational TV. Wikipedia too, even though it is not reliable.
Sci-Hub arose as a tool to be used in a Russian-speaking online research community.
The majority of the wealth of human knowledge is owned by a few publishing companies that hoard information and make billions off licensing fees, although most scholarly articles and journals are paid for by taxpayers through government grants.
I don’t know anyone in government who would read the academic journals that policy school professors get rewarded for publishing in.
Usually, to promote a new work, I'll aspire to be published in the 'Columbia Law Review' or the 'Stanford Law Review' and to have at least five really enticing footnotes.
I'm an academic. It's publish or perish.
I graduated with an English degree and worked for awhile in academic publishing.
I use all kinds of resources for researching my novels. I'm not shy about calling up experts and asking questions, or emailing, or buying textbooks and references. The Internet is always a brilliant way to find instant facts, but it's not a great way to really understand your subjects in depth without a lot of work.
It did not take long after the rise of the commercial printing press before someone figured out that erotic novels were a good idea. ... It took people another 150 years to even think of the scientific journal.
I published only in academic journals in philosophy until I was in my 40s, but I had been writing fiction and poetry my whole adult life - without ever once trying to publish it, and rarely letting anyone read it.
I have seen journals with good financial backing and editorial support die because they looked so bad nobody wanted to publish them.
Most of the papers which are submitted to the Physical Review are rejected, not because it is impossible to understand them, but because it is possible. Those which are impossible to understand are usually published.