ArcticDagger

No, that's not what I said. You're right that journals, to some extent, also lends credibility to the publication, but it's not the source of credibility. What I said was that an article published in Nature will have many more views than an article published on a random WordPress blog.

Again, saying that researchers "agree to have it that way" ignores the structural difficulty of changing the system by the individual. The ones who benefit the most from changing the system are also the ones most dependent on external funding - that is, young researchers. Publishing in low-impact journals (ones that has a small outreach such as most open-access journals) makes it much harder to apply for funding

The typeset article is what you'd see if you download the .pdf from, e.g., Nature. .

It's the manuscript with all the stuff that distinguishes an article from one journal to another (where is the abstract, what font type, is there a divider between some sections, etc.). Articles that have not been typeset yet can be seen from Arxiv, for example this one: https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.04391

There are several benefits, but compared to WordPress, I guess the biggest one is outreach: no one will actually see an article if it's published by a young researcher that hasn't made a name for themselves yet. It will also not be catalogued and will therefore be more difficult to find when searching for articles.

Also, calling researchers "whipped" is a bit dismissive to the huge inertia there is in the realm of scientific publication. The scientific journal of Nature was founded in 1869, but general open-access publishing has only really taken off in the last decade or so.

You will transfer the economic copyright to most journals upon publication of the typeset manuscript meaning that you're not allowed to publish that particular PDF anywhere. However, a lot of journals are okay with you publishing the pre-peer reviewed article or even sometimes the peer-reviewed, but NOT typeset article (sometimes called post-print article). Scientific publishing is weird :-)

Nej, det forstår jeg heller ikke. Er det fordi de mener, at de så kan dække mindre af byen per dag, fordi de i snit kører langsommere? Omvendt, så må det blive sikrere at køre udrykning, når alle andre kører langsommere

Thanks, and yes, you're correct

The actual scientific article is open-access: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07856-5

Ahh that's wack. The article it's based on is open-access: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07856-5

Plenty. If you scroll down, there's tens of research articles linked. You just have to click on the circles for most of the articles :-)

Here's an excerpt from the bottom of the article':

The most conclusive long-term study on sleep training to date is a 2012 randomized controlled trial on 326 infants, which found no difference on any measure—negative or positive—between children who were sleep trained and those who weren’t after a 5 year follow up. The study includes measurements of sleep patterns, behavior, cortisol levels, and, importantly, attachment.

Ja, jeg synes også den er svær for næsten alle løsninger virker til at ville ramme skævt. Skribenten har tidligere snakket om en løsning, hvor det er staten, der sidder signeringscertifikater, så trafikken er krypteret, men hvor de, med en dommerkendelse, kan få adgang til det hele. Men no way, at de kriminelle så kommer til at bruge de "officielle" løsninger og så er vi lige vidt

Den er svær, men jeg kan mærke, at jeg selv er begyndt at bløde lidt op

Yes, beklager!

Fra artiklen:

Nu er de lokale IT-liberalister og andre rigtige mænd i fuld gang med at trække i harnisk, fordi Justitsministeren har udtalt:

Vi er nødt til at bryde med den totalt fejlagtige opfattelse af, at det er enhver mands frihedsrettighed at kommunikere på krypterede beskedtjenester, som bliver brugt til at facilitere mange forskellige alvorlige former for kriminalitet

...

Til reference Artikel 8 [fra Den Europæiske Menneskerettighedskonvention] i sin helhed:

Artikel 8 Ret til respekt for privatliv og familieliv

1. Enhver har ret til respekt for sit privatliv og familieliv, sit hjem og sin korrespondance.
2. Ingen offentlig myndighed kan gøre indgreb i udøvelsen af denne ret, undtagen for så vidt det sker i overensstemmelse med loven og er nødvendigt i et demokratisk samfund af hensyn til den nationale sikkerhed, den offentlige tryghed eller landets økonomiske velfærd, for at forebygge uro eller forbrydelse, for at beskytte sundheden eller sædeligheden eller for at beskytte andres ret og frihed.

Uden at ty til målfoto tør jeg godt påstå at ministeren rammer indenfor skiven med sin kalibrerede udtalelses.