Correct, scientists both do the labour of reviewing articles for free and then are also charged by the journals to view the articles.
There are essentially only a few publishing companies so it's basically a racket and they can do whatever they want. Most scientists in my field post preprint type articles on arXiv though so it can always be read there.
It would be good if scientists stopped publishing in closed access journals
The thing is, publishing your article as open access generally requires you as the author to pay upwards of $2k USD. I think I've seen some that are around 4k.
That's just it though, they know it's divisive, that's the point. They don't care if they're lying they just hope their lies spread to enough people.
Indigenous issues are pretty complex imo, so writing people off who are getting confused by the flood of BS seems like a good way of losing the referendum.
I take great exception to per capita values.
In the overall picture it bears little relevance, the total output is the most important value.
Per capita values can be used to tell you where to focus your effort though, provided it's coupled with an understanding of why the value may be high (which this article gives).
I agree it would be good to be able to harness this sort of BS tactic, but I think part of the problem is that the people who generally use these tactics just don't give a shit about what's true. The other thing is that conservative groups and businesses tend to have a lot more money and control over media platforms that left wing groups do, so it's much easier to spread their message.
You might be right, but when you don't care at all about truth, you can say anything you want. Most claims they're making can be easily fact checked, but they also rely on most people not having the time or the energy to actually read anything in detail.
They would either a) lie and say it anyway or b) find something else to bitch about. The conservatives oppose the voice and no amount of reason or evidence will stop them from finding an issue or making one up.
Probably more direct than I would have been but good post, glad you've argued with people on the internet so I don't have to.
A mixture of slippery slope, a complete disregard for the weight of history and a lack of understanding of the difference between "law" and "justice" seem to be a recurring set of arguments when it comes to disagreeing with social justice issues.
Dr Andy Schmulow, an associate professor of law at the University of Wollongong, said the disclosures highlighted industry-wide structural issues needed to be addressed.
The structural issue being using these firms at all.
Correct, scientists both do the labour of reviewing articles for free and then are also charged by the journals to view the articles.
There are essentially only a few publishing companies so it's basically a racket and they can do whatever they want. Most scientists in my field post preprint type articles on arXiv though so it can always be read there.