a lot of knowledge, and I also strongly agree mr. @dhimmel...
moreover if you can get all the knowledge that can be posted in steemit, so that everyone can learn with openness, we can discuss everything through media without attachment, because even though we devote a little knowledge, it can be a guide for all circles ...
good job mr. @dhimmel and good luck ...

> Publishing in a high impact journal is not, in and of itself, a contribution to science at all. Studies should not be judged by the journal which published them, but rather a verifiable record (beyond just citations) that the outputs of that study are driving the next generation of research.

Exactly.

# CC BY License

I forgot to release this post under an open license, but I'll do that now. [This post](https://busy.org/@dhimmel/one-change-to-make-science-more-open/) and all my comments on it are hereby released under a [Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which allows anyone to reuse it for any purpose if they credit the original source.

I love these ideals.   After 15 years working on clean tech startup companies in the renewable space I am a little more jaded however.    

This is such an important statement  " Studies should not be judged by the journal which published them, but rather a verifiable record (beyond just citations) that the outputs of that study are driving the next generation of research" .  It is however almost impossible for them to verify these outputs as perception is often not reality and you would end up with people who are good at spinning their work coming to the forefront when in reality it may be others who had the more impact, unnoticed by the community.   Also a paper which is otherwise goes unnoticed could have had a major impact on someone who then started a company/trend and drove radical societal change.  The original author may never be the wiser, which is why those small esoteric papers are so important, they are mostly ignored but every now and then they change the world.

That's a very good answer! However, I don't think previous contributions are enough since this number is directly correlated to how open science's access.

Let me give you an example. Not long along I wasn't fortunate enough to have access to ieeexplore. I hardly managed to do the research I needed to do, and most of the hypothesis needed to be validated by me alone even though nowadays I see those were already validated by someone else, I just didn't have access to it. As a result, I reinvented the wheel and spent time doing something not so "novel", although it had its impact.

Open science for me means the research should be public. Why hiding incredible results behind some subscription model? What's the point? Only for elite members to access it? There's a lot of creative non-elite people in the world who could use those to create magnificent things.

I also think the more open these things are the more contributions authors will make. It's not necessarily because they will have more incentives but because they will have a wider reach.

Now given that science is open to everyone, then the contribution could be (perhaps) measured on how much work they have inspired, not just cited as you mention but how much weight they had in other people's lifes. But again, it's difficult to measure with a single metric.

Ultimately, I love this EU initiative 😊 http://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/h2020-section/open-science-open-access.

Posted using [Partiko Android](https://steemit.com/@partiko-android)

I completely agree with what you said. I have been in formula student as Vehicle Dynamic lead in our college. I badly wanted to read some journals for improving performance of our vehicle but those were expensive. I should buy knowledge here which I hate. If have access to those journals I may have created something more innovative and that way I see progress but that doesn't happen. Don't know what can be done about it.

I am happy to belong to a field where all the most important publications are open access (thanks to the SCOAP3 program, supported in particular by CERN). We also have the arxiv which is the platform from which articles are submitted to journals. And the arxiv is free (and even searchable, in particular via Inspire).

Finally, in more and more committees (at least some in which I had a role to play), what matters is indeed the impact, as you noticed. But this impact can be measured by different indicators, the number of citations being one of them but not only. Conferences, seminars, software, etc... there are many ways to quantify the impact and all those ways together should count!

Nice debate in any case! :)

Well written Daniel, makes perfect sense even to me. Btw how is the situation with scientific articles here on Steemit? I know they should be available under the tag "steemstem" but I have not really looked into this part of the platform much. Are they good in general?

First of all, thank you very much for this mention @dhimmel, I'm pleasantly surprised that someone actually reads and likes my blog :)

To be honest, I've been feeling extremely demotivated to write lately, because I have a feeling that not many people are interested in my articles, and I cannot even blame them, since topics I write about can sometimes be difficult to grasp...

Regarding evaluation of scientists, I completely agree with you that their work shouldn't be evaluated solely based on their publications in high impact journals, but on the contribution of their work to the scientific community in general.

Regarding @steemstem community, I can say that we try our best to promote good quality content related to any of the STEM categories.

If you're interested to find out more about our community, you're more than welcome to join us at our Discord server:

https://discord.gg/p6BUxv

Hope to see you and other people interested in open science there!

<div class='text-justify'> <div class='pull-left'> <br /> <center> <img width='125' src='https://i.postimg.cc/9FwhnG3w/steemstem_curie.png'> </center>  <br/> </div> <br /> <br /> 

 This post has been voted on by the **SteemSTEM** curation team and voting trail in collaboration with **@curie**. <br /> 
 If you appreciate the work we are doing then consider [voting](https://www.steemit.com/~witnesses) both projects for witness by selecting [**stem.witness**](https://steemconnect.com/sign/account_witness_vote?approve=1&witness=stem.witness) and [**curie**](https://steemconnect.com/sign/account_witness_vote?approve=1&witness=curie)! <br /> 
For additional information please join us on the [**SteemSTEM discord**]( https://discord.gg/BPARaqn) and to get to know the rest of the community! </div>

You gave a very reasonable remarks and opinions to the question. I think whatever contributes to general wellfare as result of new knowledge and scientific discoveries, should be open to wide public. Every scientist should be proud of the fact that his or her work can be of some benefit of people.