The big issue is that the individuals who lead these institutions are those who are successful with the status quo; perhaps some recognize the importance of changing it but I perceive that most would be unwilling to dismantle a system that worked well for them.

In part it’s prestige, which for some might matter for promotion purposes, and at least personally I’m more like to cite journals for which I know I trust their judgement in peer review and submission acceptance. There are predatory publishers which abuse the open access concept to make money, and if I’m reviewing literature I don’t want to have to also research if a journal can be trusted (unless of course the publication I want to include is novel or especially worthwhile).

Also, in many contexts open access requires payment by the authors; this may be fine if an author is in a large grant-funded lab or at an institution willing to fund the open access fee but for many of us non-research-track folks it’s kind of a deal breaker.

Yeah there are some openly available datasets on competition sites like Kaggle, and some medical data is available through public institutions like like NIH.

I’m not very interested in cryptocurrency generally but I’m interested in how the tech works–in addition to the aforementioned issues with security if one party controls a significant amount of the lightning network, wouldn’t lightning also be inefficient if a large percentage of transactions are one-offs? It would generate a transaction on the blockchain to open the payment channel between two accounts and a second transaction to close the account, correct? So if the actual number of transactions is two or less it doesn’t offer any actual advantage?

Elsevier pays its reviewers very well! In fact, in exchange for my last review, I received a free month of ScienceDirect and Scopus…

… Which my institution already pays for. Honestly it’s almost more insulting than getting nothing.

I try to provide thorough reviews for about twice as many articles as I publish in an effort to sort of repay the scientific community for taking the time to review my own articles, but in academia reviewing is rewarded far less than publishing. Paid reviews sound good but I’d be concerned that some would abuse this system for easy cash and review quality would decrease (not that it helped in this case). If full open access publishing is not available across the board (it should be), I would love it if I could earn open access credits for my publications in exchange for providing reviews.

The predicted outcomes of sinus surgery for chronic rhinosinusitis may use the SNOT scale (sinonasal outcome test)

Sorry! I conflated LogMeIn with a specific LogMeIn product, LastPass (Francisco acquired the whole thing but I’m only familiar with LastPass). To clarify, the free tier of LastPass was made less useful following acquisition, particularly with the limitation to a single device.

Same firm that acquired LogMeIn (LastPass) and MyFitnessPal–and after those acquisitions both MyFitnessPal and LastPass quickly moved to worsen the free tiers of services in favor of their paid subscription models.