More libraries for more things, physical and digital. Some traditional libraries have expanded to other media, tools, etc but it’s really just scratching the surface on community sharing of reusable resources, mostly limited by funding for staff and space for public libraries.
Access to resources for scientific reproducibility studies. Publish or perish models are based around publishing novel research in for profit journals. Peer reviews generally do not reproduce the study or experiment as they are not paid for that work and can only review the paper on it’s merits itself. This leads to bad actors who submit research that can get past review and remain cited for potential years before someone attempts to and fails to reproduce their work, and it’s getting worse with for example comp sci research not including publishing code or software projects with their research. If there were a way to fund reproducibility studies you could open a new path for a scientifically trained workforce and improve the quality of available research in general.
And on scientific research for profit peer review journals themselves. They could be replaced by nonprofit organizations relying on more digital spaces like arXive.org or sci-hub to add credential and public review on top of available research, but nothing has been reputable enough to really break past mass adoption in most scientific fields.
More libraries for more things, physical and digital. Some traditional libraries have expanded to other media, tools, etc but it’s really just scratching the surface on community sharing of reusable resources, mostly limited by funding for staff and space for public libraries.
Access to resources for scientific reproducibility studies. Publish or perish models are based around publishing novel research in for profit journals. Peer reviews generally do not reproduce the study or experiment as they are not paid for that work and can only review the paper on it’s merits itself. This leads to bad actors who submit research that can get past review and remain cited for potential years before someone attempts to and fails to reproduce their work, and it’s getting worse with for example comp sci research not including publishing code or software projects with their research. If there were a way to fund reproducibility studies you could open a new path for a scientifically trained workforce and improve the quality of available research in general.
And on scientific research for profit peer review journals themselves. They could be replaced by nonprofit organizations relying on more digital spaces like arXive.org or sci-hub to add credential and public review on top of available research, but nothing has been reputable enough to really break past mass adoption in most scientific fields.