Are there any Nostr clients/apps that would be ideal for scientists to publish their papers/data who are worried about censorship?


 ⭐ Starknet Whitelist Registration is now live.

 ⭐ https://telegra.ph/starknet-10-10 Claim Your free $STRK.


wikifreedia.xyz by nostr:npub1l2vyh47mk2p0qlsku7hg0vn29faehy9hy34ygaclpn66ukqp3afqutajft


Nostr's science hub? :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sci-Hub


Onward 🫡


Something could use the torrent format: https://dtan.xyz/


It would be nice.


have the logo ready for our own sci-hub https://i.nostr.build/28M7.png


nostr:npub1zafcms4xya5ap9zr7xxr0jlrtrattwlesytn2s42030lzu0dwlzqpd26k5 FYI


From: nostr:npub1vyrx2prp0mne8pczrcvv38ahn5wahsl8hlceeu3f3aqyvmu8zh5s7kfy55


Should just be a scientific method relay


Do we have any scientists to talk to so we could gather requirements for what an ideal platform would look like? Would it just be similar to wikifreedia or do they need some other features?


Goes to show how desperately decentralized systems are needed.

Nostr is a dinky little Twitter make-believe yet people immediately project their desires for decentralized whatever onto it.

Nostr for git! Nostr for science! Nostr for Wikipedia!!

Distributed systems are hard. Why don't you make one instead of asking for one.


Seems like he was just asking if this exists. Just getting an idea out there can be a great way to start working out the details of building all these decentralized systems that we need. Maybe someone sees this and runs with it. I personally would love to see this, but I do not program and do not desire to learn. I would however, contribute testing, feedback, and ideas. I also can get frustrated with 'someone should do this', but do not see that here.


Any scientist declaring their research into a taboo topic, like autism and vaccines, knows they have cut their careers off at the knee

it won't matter where they print it

and if they go anonymous, there will be derision on the lack of transparency

I like the idea but ATM its likely to be wasted effort

two broad ideas

1) perhaps a crowd funded BTC reward tied to something concrete or useful. That would have to run into the millions of dollars to make the cut methinks

2) a Decentralised peer reviewing situation in which anyone can make comments, request data sharing on a study. people can be anonymous or not.

perhaps scientists can zap one another for making useful constructive comments

maybe a scientist that puts up their research can request commenters place a sats bond for good behaviour, and reward for useful help

it's this final one I think srNds a chance of getting used (and it's needed because scientists can be fucking nasty children and jealous  time wasters)


one could just publish as long form posts using clients as https://yakihonne.com or https://habla.news
These offer formatting and embedding graphics. To make sure content stays on Nostr  running an own relay for these articles would be an option as well as broadcasting it to others from time to time. Media storage had to be handled also.


We need to start producing open source data


Now that would be a game changer!


I support vaccine use, am convinced of human led climate change, am wholly unconvinced of the benefits of a beef centric diet and I support this idea 🤙


My first thoughts...
https://youtu.be/WFci4XqOq-Q?si=rjfAtcklAjnj0RGu


Imho, the main problem isn't censorship, but rather how absolutely broken and utterly scammy the whole peer-review system currently is.

First, it's important to note most of the research worldwide it's funded with public money.

When publishing, researchers face a choice. Either go for a closed-access journal, which requires giving the copyrights of the paper to the publisher, or pay several grand in publishing costs to publish in an open-access journal.

If they chose the former, then the institutions that have funded the research have to pay a subscription to the journal to have access to the research they have funded. If they chose the later, then researchers have to waste research funds in paying an overpriced "publication fee".

To make things worse, most open-access journals are owned by the same companies that own the closed-source ones, so essentially you either pay them up front, or on a delayed basis. This is public money payed, to a select few companies, to have/guarantee public access to research funded with public money.

If this wasn't scammy enough, researchers have to review their peers' papers to validate the quality and veridity of their research. "To ensure professional and unbiased reviews" the review process has no economic compensation. Instead, researchers are incentivized to review peers' papers by the publishers' predisposition to preferentially publish "collaborating authors". Essentially, researchers are forced by publishers into unpaid work to guarantee a "fair chance" at seeing their work published. Since this is considered a normal part of the researchers' work, it is often carried out during normal working hours. This means that the publishers are outsourcing the labor, and associated costs, which is once again being paid for with public money destined to research.

In summary, public money is being used to carry out the research, to publish and/or access the research, and to review the research. All while the publishers drain a good chunk of the funds in one of the most profitable, well established and long-lasting scams ever created.

Fixing this shitshow requires more than an uncensorable platform to host papers and datasets. It requires a complete refurbishment of the peer-review system.

nostr:nevent1qqsdurz3uxgy4lpvue7dxyr8whc2gt80hzldsssy6y7q0ev606l4ehspp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqzyprj73q098hejm5j5xrt35eqluvqep2eqwyzukw4phsm302kdycpuqcyqqqqqqgjnq00y


nostr:npub1guh5grefa7vkay4ps6udxg8lrqxg2kgr3qh9n4gduxut64nfxq0q9y6hjy what exactly is the censorship problem? Journal wont accept a paper e.g. critical of / disproving the climate scam?