In the current "war" over hoarding access to scientific publications, for example, we have seen a scramble among traditional paper-publishers to grab a share (or try and hold-on to, and extend to the new media of the Internet, the traditional commercial share of business, they have always heretofore enjoyed), such as Wiley Intersciences, and we have seen the battle shaping-up among ostensibly "free" online services such as, Academia.edu , RG (and Google Scholar ?) to provide Open Access. How long in the future do you think it will be before RG is forced to face economic realities and) enters "talks" to merge with Google? I wonder ...?
I think that the research community should be open to new and revolutionary ideas like open access and RG. I agree with the comments above and would like to suggest that RG should try and introduce new features like open course ware too as I have seen that this can be a good platform for new teachers to learn from the experiences of experienced teachers.
Moreover a thing I am proud of is to be a part of many discussions which I believe I could never have engaged in otherwise, including many cross domain and even cross faith dialogues. Which have been an astonishing experience. I have over the years acquired a lot from the support given to me by the RG community. I would hate to see a merger and deviation from the basic principles.
This is a good question with many possible answers.
The short answer: For researchers, RG will win, even though Google has a search engine that RG lacks.
It would be a tragedy, if RG merges with Google. I say this because RG caters to the research communities, whereas Google is not tailored to the needs of researchers.
An outstanding feature of RG is its encouragement of a dialogue among researchers in terms messages, question-based threads, and commentary on published articles. This is feature of RG that is incredibly important for researchers and this feature is totally lacking in Google.
During the next 20-30 years we will have seen the biggest turf wars between the traditionalists and the new technological revolution. The last 30 years of popping up of managerialism and corporatorial power over the professionals and technologists will have to go and will surely go, no matter what.
Why do we need some unqualified, unskilled people control the scientists, control the professional and control the technologies? Stats show overwhelming loss to progress because some elite of the world are controlling the masses via economic slavery while the slaves are, by and large, oblivious to them being enslaved, enslaved to the money mechanics. Most do not even realize that they are not working for themselves and their families, and or the communities, but are doing mundane repetitive jobs that could even today be done by the technology for the economic puppeteers. They (employees) are working and trying to earn more and more in the hope of their own prosperity, while in fact they are working for the banks and their masters, while paying off their debts to the creditors, the puppeteers.
Today's world is a true example of global economic slavery controlled and puppeteered by economic slave traders, and yet the slaves (us all) think, we are the 'doers' and it's our fault if we falter, or fail.
Hail the free market economy: Sadly, it is orchestrated by a few, slavery and exploitation in the name of freedom.
I wish science and the scientists could all understand it. I believe, it must be an open access to all the knowledge and information available, the checks and barriers to certain access need be kept by the internet multimedia, especially the one that is built into the system rather than controlled by a few ...
Thanx for a good question needing intense debate ...
Suresh
I think that the research community should be open to new and revolutionary ideas like open access and RG. I agree with the comments above and would like to suggest that RG should try and introduce new features like open course ware too as I have seen that this can be a good platform for new teachers to learn from the experiences of experienced teachers.
Moreover a thing I am proud of is to be a part of many discussions which I believe I could never have engaged in otherwise, including many cross domain and even cross faith dialogues. Which have been an astonishing experience. I have over the years acquired a lot from the support given to me by the RG community. I would hate to see a merger and deviation from the basic principles.
I am particularly worried that open access journals in haste to publish will not have the rigorous review process that traditional journals currently have! Scientific integrity requires a good peer review!
I want to predict that Google will win the battle to build the biggest, strongest ad exchange -- because it will be better at monetising display ad inventory. This is not simply a reckless prediction; it is based on the underlying economics of ad exchanges and the careful choices Google is making in building out its exchange business.
Ad exchanges have been around for a number of years now, with Yahoo's RightMedia being the largest and most successful exchange to date. DoubleClick launched its ad exchange shortly before being acquired by Google, but since the acquisition have not promoted it heavily, and put it on idle while rethinking and rebuilding the tool. At a recent roundtable event, Google outlined their next generation ad exchange to be launched in the autumn of this year. The way they've tweaked the model is simple, yet fundamental. Here are the most significant changes and how it will impact publishers and advertisers alike: 1. AdWords becomes the buying platform
2. Guaranteed publishers payments on 30 days
3. Dynamic allocation for all
Best Regards Bob Skiles
I will go for google. The structure put in place by google could be difficult to beat by the existing platforms of similar interest. Google will always be the first and the last resort in situation like this. Thanks.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Publishing