Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

World Bank Embraces Open Access and Makes All of Its Research Freely Available

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the one-step-in-the-right-direction dept.

The Almighty Buck 46

Fluffeh writes "The World Bank is taking steps toward greater transparency. It announced recently that it would be instituting a new 'Open Access policy for its research outputs and knowledge products' beginning July 1. The policy's full title is 'World Bank Open Access Policy for Formal Publications,' and the Bank says it will apply to 'manuscripts and all accompanying data sets... that result from research, analysis, economic and sector work, or development practice... that have undergone peer review or have been otherwise vetted and approved for release to the public; and... for which internal approval for release is given on or after July 1, 2012,' as well as the final reports prepared by outside parties for the Bank. Over 2,100 books and papers from 2009-2012 are already available in the repository"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Great Start (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 2 years ago | (#39688455)

Can't wait for the rest of it to be transparent.

âoeThat which can be destroyed by the truth should be." - P. C. Hodgell

Re:Great Start (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39689217)

Can't wait for the rest of it to be transparent.

âoeThat which can be destroyed by the truth should be." - P. C. Hodgell

They'll never allow that. Then the sheeple who are sheeple because they refuse to inform themselves concerning the way the world really works might realize what the World Bank is all about. No, the Bank would rather that the masses and masses of sheeple go on believing that they are "helping" all those impoverished "developing" third-world nations. The Bank would definitely not like the dumb masses to realize that theirs is a policy of economic warfare utilizing the only form of slavery that's still legal: debt.

What the privately owned Federal Reserve is slowly doing to the USA, had tried to do for hundreds of years and finally managed to do in the early 20th century, that's what the World Bank does to a bunch of smaller nations. Create currency out of nothing to monetize not wealth, but debt. As all world bankers know, if you control a nation's currency then you can take it over without ever firing a single shot. These bastards do not like to directly get their hands dirty. They have people for that. In fact they are responsible for just about every war that has happened in the last 100 years that wasn't started by Muslims (sorry but Muslims do start a lot of regional wars, it is just a fact, consider the worship of money to be a different kind of religion with different kinds of orthodoxy, clergy, and heretics).

If you want a model for how these banksters operate, consider the crack cocaine dealer. The first one's free or very low in price. Both the banksters and the crack dealer understand how to set processes in motion that destroy the sovereignty of their "customers" and leave them at their mercy.

Re:Great Start (2)

jpapon (1877296) | more than 2 years ago | (#39689359)

Create currency out of nothing to monetize not wealth, but debt.

This is such nonsense. Debt has always been a part of wealth and power. Debt has always been monetized. Debt without monetization is meaningless, as is monetization without debt. All currency is based on trust in some entity, and trust that that entity will repay their debts.

Re:Great Start (1, Troll)

causality (777677) | more than 2 years ago | (#39689681)

All currency is based on trust in some entity, and trust that that entity will repay their debts.

Really? So tell me, whom do I need to trust that gold coins will retain substantial value? Did someone discover an economical way to turn lead into gold that I don't know about?

No, you simply described all fiat currency. Not all currency. Even paper money is based on wealth and not debt if it's representative currency backed by gold or silver.

Why don't you take a few minutes sometime to read up on how the Federal Reserve works, how they create currency out of thin air in exchange for government IOUs called treasury bonds, how interest is attached to the money at the time it is created which means there is never enough money in circulation to repay the debt, which means the only possibility is ever-increasing debt? Just insisting really, really hard that this can't be so will not change the situation.

America got hoodwinked and America got fucked the moment the Fed was established. Many other nations followed suit. It's that simple. In fact good ol' Abraham Lincoln had a lot to say about this very subject. Do you perchance know why he issued the greenback? It was in response to bankers' attempts to establish something just like the modern Federal Reserve during his time. He knew this would mean the government losing control of the money supply and being beholden to said bankers. He issued the greenback to stop this from happening. In fact I believe that's why he was murdered, but that's another subject (amazing how people will believe that a mugger might shoot someone for the $20 in their pocket but won't believe that powerful people will murder over tremendous amounts of wealth).

This is what Lincoln said:

The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace, and conspire against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than monarchy, more insular than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. Corporations have been enthroned; an era of corruption will follow and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the republic is destroyed.

Oh and here's another quote, this time from FDR:

The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the larger centers has owned the government ever since the days of Andrew Jackson. -- U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt, 1933

Hey, and another rather frank one from Henry Ford:

It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be revolution before tomorrow morning.

They used to be much more open about what they want. Ever heard of the USA Banker's Magazine? Try this one:

Capital must protect itself in every possible manner by combination and legislation. Debts must be collected, bonds and mortgages must be foreclosed as rapidly as possible. When, through a process of law, the common people lose their homes they will become more docile and more easily governed through the influence of the strong arm of government, applied by a central power of wealth under control of leading financiers. This truth is well known among our principal men now engaged in forming an imperialism of Capital to govern the world. By dividing the voters through the political party system, we can get them to expend their energies in fighting over questions of no importance. Thus by discreet action we can secure for ourselves what has been so well planned and so successfully accomplished... -- USA Banker's Magazine, August 25, 1924

Thomas Jefferson was farsighted enough to see this as well. It is very much like performing a security audit of a computer system: you can discover the vulnerabilities prior to an actual intrusion. He's doing something like that here:

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their money, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them, will deprive the people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.

In my experience the very best way to be regarded as something like a prophet is to see the obvious, see that it tries to become more so, and then call that exactly what it is.

Seriously, get informed. You think your position serves your interests? I tell you the truth, if you have enough money and enough media access you can make absolutely anything into "something everybody knows". Anything at all.

The truth about this is not difficult to research. Not in the slightest.

Re:Great Start (3, Insightful)

jpapon (1877296) | more than 2 years ago | (#39689873)

No, you simply described all fiat currency. Not all currency. Even paper money is based on wealth and not debt if it's representative currency backed by gold or silver.

This is simply not true. Even paper notes which are backed by gold are only valuable because one trusts that they will be able to exchange their notes for gold, which is basically the definition of debt. You give me something "worthless" (a piece of paper), and I give you something valuable in exchange (gold), trusting that you will honor your obligation to give me the gold if I need it. You are indebted to me.

which means there is never enough money in circulation to repay the debt, which means the only possibility is ever-increasing debt? Just insisting really, really hard that this can't be so will not change the situation.

I'm not denying this. This is simply not a problem, unless people lose faith in the system. Why do we need to fix the amount of currency in circulation to that which physically has been printed, or been mined from the earth? Gold has no intrinsic value of its own... what is wrong with letting currency fluctuate based on other parameters than simply "the amount of gold which we have been able to, or foresee being able to, in the near future, dig up"?

As for your quotes, you seemed to have missed the point of them.

Lincoln was saying that money should not be enshrined over a democratic government.

FDR was merely saying that which everybody knows, ie, "wealth is power" (it doesn't matter the form said wealth takes, debt or diamonds).

Ford was saying the system benefits those who have wealth more than it does those who do not. I agree that we could work towards a more level playing field.

I don't know what to make of the anonymous Banker's magazine contributor. They seem to be trying to personify a Marxist "evil greedy capitalist".

As for Jefferson, the quote has no substance to it, it is merely his opinion. It may be true, but then again, Jefferson was a slave owner, so "depriving people of their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent" was something he did every day when he got out of bed. How can one trust his opinion on the subject?

Re:Great Start (1)

jpapon (1877296) | more than 2 years ago | (#39689935)

The more I look at it actually, it seems Lincoln was warning against the military industrial complex.

Again though, and I can't state this enough, Jefferson was an asshole to talk about the evils of debt-slavery when he owned actual slaves.

Re:Great Start (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39691803)

" Even paper notes which are backed by gold are only valuable because one trusts that they will be able to exchange their notes for gold, which is basically the definition of debt."

Holding someones property with promise of reclamation is not the same as debt. Claiming to have ones property stored safely is not the same as claiming to be obligated to repay a loan over some amount of time. The first stores property, the second aims to recoup it. The end result is a difference in risk of getting ones property back, hence interest rates and such.

The reason for your misunderstanding is that in current fractional reserve banking systems, fiat currency is not held and stored in the manner described for gold and promissory notes. Money saved is loaned at a highly leveraged fraction and thus there genuinely isn't any difference between a loan and promise of return of property. They are really just giving you money back so long as they can regain money on how they invest it. They do not store much at all. It leads many to assume that gold backed currency must behave similarly. It can be the case that bankers fraudulently issue out more notes than they have gold stored by customers, but that doesn't justify the claim that promise to return property is the same as debt. It just means some people lie about their promises.

Debt and promissory note property reclamation are not the same. If they were, then such storage would incur the same interest rates upon the holder for the risk of default.

Re:Great Start (1)

jpapon (1877296) | more than 2 years ago | (#39692033)

Debt and promissory note property reclamation are not the same. If they were, then such storage would incur the same interest rates upon the holder for the risk of default.

They are the same, and they do incur an interest rate dependent on the risk of default, it's just that since the risk of default is essentially zero, so is the interest rate. And again, if I give gold to someone in exchange for a note, they are very much in my debt. They can do whatever they want with the gold so long as when I ask for it back, they give it to me.

Claiming to have ones property stored safely is not the same as claiming to be obligated to repay a loan over some amount of time.

You're the one with the misconception. A "loan" and a "debt" are not synonymous, but you seem to think they are, and by extension, think I should.

Feudalism is not the answer (2)

dbIII (701233) | more than 2 years ago | (#39690453)

Neal Stephenson addressed the difference between money based on objects or land versus money based on activity in his three historical novels about the 1600s in a way better than I ever could. Modern society appears to have only been possible by getting the resources out of the hands of family dynasties (an obvious consequence of such things as a gold standard) and letting others have a go at participating in the economy.
Turning back the clock will only result in a single generation benefit for those that are already very wealthy. You have been conned by those that will benefit into advocating throwing the entire system just because of some examples of corruption. The answer is to clean up the corruption instead of throwing everything that works away as well.
All currency beyond direct barter is "fiat currency" anyway. A gold standard or land ownership or whatever is just a different abstraction.

Re:Feudalism is not the answer (1)

jpapon (1877296) | more than 2 years ago | (#39690599)

I just finished Quicksilver... I can't wait to get to the other two. Are they as good?

Re:Feudalism is not the answer (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 2 years ago | (#39690977)

IMHO it gets better. I don't know if I'm slow or not but it really didn't hit me until book 3 that the series is about money, despite the opening paragraph in book 2 giving a huge hint. They are also a prequel to Cryptonomicon in a way or at least have a few things turn up in both settings.

Re:Feudalism is not the answer (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#39692479)

The answer is to clean up the corruption instead of throwing everything that works away as well.

You will never clean up the corruption in this system because when you create a center of power someone corrupt will always be trying to take it, and if you don't create a center of power then someone corrupt will. Consequently it is a truism that eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.

Re:Feudalism is not the answer (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 2 years ago | (#39693397)

You guys appear to think that a complete revolution is the answer without understanding that your own revolution was built on mostly just changing who was in charge (Americans instead of English) without changing much of how society actually worked. Throwing it all away is the sort of opportunity that budding Stalins are looking for.

Re:Feudalism is not the answer (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 2 years ago | (#39693443)

Actually, you have it entirely backwards, and nothing in my comment supports your assertion. I think that a revolution is pointless (360 degrees and you're back where you started) because what we really need is to evolve (socially?) to the point where we take responsibility for our own freedom and get involved.

Re:Great Start (1)

dkf (304284) | more than 2 years ago | (#39691369)

No, you simply described all fiat currency. Not all currency. Even paper money is based on wealth and not debt if it's representative currency backed by gold or silver.

But I can't really do all that much with gold except make jewelry with it. Oh, and contacts on silicon chips. Guess we need some of it, but not that much. Silver's more useful, as it has anti-bacterial properties. Why again would we value those metals as much as you seem to think we should? They're just as much a kind of fiat currency, unless you can come up with a way to tightly bind those to the amount of work a person can do (and the value of that work). Nobody's ever succeeded at that, and if they could, it would work just as well with paper or even pure digital currency.

BTW, I was originally going to say "a way to fix the cost of goods" in the previous paragraph, i.e., to get zero inflation, but then I thought about the fact that the prices of things naturally change as they become easier or harder to produce. Eternally fixing prices just petrifies current imbalances, and in any case it is human effort that people really care about.

Re:Great Start (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39695803)

you are wrong, because paper "money" of centuries ago is worthless, as will be our current paper in the future. But gold of thousands of years ago carries value now. Gold is a form of real money, while our paper money is merely an indebtedness note issued by the banking cartel controlled by a few wealthy families, it's value always goes to zero without any historical exception. The World Bank is just one organ of the banking cartel with the same goal, control of wealth through indebtedness.

Re:Great Start (1)

multicoregeneral (2618207) | more than 2 years ago | (#39691005)

Historically, the World Bank hasn't been especially transparent at all. But unless this is just a PR stunt, I see no reason not to believe that this would only be the start of it.

Re:Great Start (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39692019)

Data could still be manipulated..

I hope the open their files (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39688465)

on Dildonics. All the current research primarily comes out of the San Fernando Valley and I'm wondering about the results of more internatinal research.

World Bank Hackathon (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 2 years ago | (#39688469)

Let's say my company wants to sponsor a hackathon in NYC that uses these World Bank APIs and datasets to make demo apps and recruit developers. How would I go about producing and hosting the event? Is there an NYC org that's done this before for other industries?

Re:World Bank Hackathon (1)

zmughal (1343549) | more than 2 years ago | (#39690865)

Neat! I would say you should look into the NYC Resistor [nycresistor.com] hackerspace, General Assembly [generalassemb.ly] , and the people behind different hack days like Music Hack Day [musichackday.org] and Photo Hack Day [photohackday.org] .

I don't know how many people you could get that would be interested in something like this since it probably doesn't have enough of a cool factor to draw people in. Maybe look at Code for America [codeforamerica.org] for some inspiration?

Heh, I'm not even from NY.

not sure what it means (1)

laserdog (2500192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39688483)

but its probaly cool so good job dude

Interesting... (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#39688569)

From the perspective of the case of the more-or-less-stock academic economists writing studies, who just happen to work for the World Bank rather than some university, open access publishing seems like a good idea for all the same reasons that it does were the same economist to be working at a university instead.

However, and the weasel wording(" or have been otherwise vetted and approved for release to the public; and... for which internal approval for release is given") in the announcement suggests this has already been thought of, it will be very interesting to see if this announcement ends up having any implications beyond PR for the other aspect of the World Bank.

The 'openness' problem that has traditionally dogged the bank among its critics is not the 'Cry, cry, we need to pay Elsevier $30/copy to get studies' one; but the 'The World Bank is a more or less opaque and dubiously accountable instrument by which a fairly cozy group of wealthy nations push dubiously helpful or even well-intentioned schemes on others under the guise of development'. It seems unlikely that open access to some journal articles and research products is going to do much to counter that perception where it presently exists; but we'll see...

Re:Interesting... (1)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 2 years ago | (#39690313)

Problem with World Bank research and data, it was all answer driven. Here's the answers we want, create research and cherry pick data to match it, then hand to to our PR=B$ department to publish it and ensure the working in poverty nobodies all worship at the alters of the rich and greedy as they should (don't forget we have to break the back of the middle class, those uppity types need to learn their place).

To bad World Bank Research is more than useless (1)

arcite (661011) | more than 2 years ago | (#39691285)

It really is. They have the same consultants writing the same drivel for decades. They have no solutions, only more ways to push unsustainable debt onto downtrodden countries. ie. Don't waste your time.

what about open access to Wolfowitz's war crimes? (2, Insightful)

Blaskowicz (634489) | more than 2 years ago | (#39688593)

That particular international institution lost all credibility when a psychopath with the blood of one million people on his hands was appointed at its head. I was infuriated but well, it did let us know there was something wrong with it.

This is only one more reason for citizens in concerned countries to mobilize, organize and bring back democracy to themselves. We must fight back against the international financial dictatorship in order to keep a livable world for ourselves, and we must denounce western war criminals for what they are : put them out of power, put them behind bars. Our dignity and our democracy depends on this.

Re:what about open access to Wolfowitz's war crime (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39688623)

The above comment is clearly and unabashedly flamebait and should be modded down, according to the Slashdot moderation rules.

Anyone modding it up is abusing their privileges to push this guy's left wing views and is a violation.

Re:what about open access to Wolfowitz's war crime (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39688677)

Good point. Truth be damned.

Re:what about open access to Wolfowitz's war crime (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39688675)

Oh wow, spew propaganda much?

Re:what about open access to Wolfowitz's war crime (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39688837)

Blood of one million people on his hands?

Be fair, he's managed to keep his hands clean, and put the blame on somebody else. For example, President Obama, who apparently is the sole and explicit cause for everything bad that has ever happened, at least, according to the conservative movement.

Who will probably reply with continual claims that it's actually Obama's fault for blaming Bush for everything. Not that they'll ever say Bush or his cronies did anything wrong, mind you, just blame Obama for pointing out that Bush was in charge when we got into the mess.

Re:what about open access to Wolfowitz's war crime (0)

jpapon (1877296) | more than 2 years ago | (#39689317)

Yikes, insert a few "Jews" into that rant and you've got yourself a vintage 1930s Nazi propaganda speech.

Re:what about open access to Wolfowitz's war crime (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39689409)

Insert a few "I hates" into your comment, and you've got yourself a classic Goebbels comment.

What is your idiotic point?

Re:what about open access to Wolfowitz's war crime (1)

jpapon (1877296) | more than 2 years ago | (#39689589)

What is your idiotic point?

That if your goal is a better, more egalitarian society, you can't start it with hate-mongering, scapegoating and lynch mob style accusations?

We are all part of the system, in its current incarnation. If we want to make it better, we must work together, rather than simply blaming some for the inequalities of the world. Don't you see that statements like those of the OP only serve to entrench prior opinions, instead of furthering the ultimate goal of economic equality?

That's my idiotic point. If history has shown anything, it is that you can't stop wars by fighting just "one more war".

Re:what about open access to Wolfowitz's war crime (1)

Blaskowicz (634489) | more than 2 years ago | (#39690955)

I tried to avoid hatred when writing, but that you've felt some when reading it is telling. it just means that people, sometimes myself, can't stomach the truth. what can we do exactly if we can't clean up our western governments and if there are no consequence for committing the supreme crime?

Re:what about open access to Wolfowitz's war crime (1)

jpapon (1877296) | more than 2 years ago | (#39692017)

I find it hard to avoid when you use words like "psychopath", "blood of a million people", "infuriate", "mobilize", "fight back", "dictatorship", "denounce", "war criminals", and then finally the conclusion that unless we listen to you and put some people behind bars we will lose our democracy.

Re:what about open access to Wolfowitz's war crime (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39695819)

You won't lose what you don't have. we don't have democracy, we have a government in the pockets of wealthy elite who wage war for profit. the ship already sank.

Re:what about open access to Wolfowitz's war crime (1)

dbIII (701233) | more than 2 years ago | (#39690373)

It's not really the World Bank's fault that it was used as a sinecure for one of vacationing Prince Bush's cronies, nor the details of the salary of his mistress from there who was being paid more than Rice. That corruption came from the outside and has nothing to do with the systemic problems within the World Bank.

Promised transparency? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39688925)

World Bank for president 2012!

Confession of an economic hit-man (2)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 2 years ago | (#39689003)

I wonder how many documents will mention Confessions Of An Economic Hit-man [amazon.com] by John-Perkins?

Re:Confession of an economic hit-man (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39691831)

I was thinking more like mentioning how the world bank often finances dictators into changing their economy in unnatural ways that put people at risk for harm they otherwise would have avoided:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ijf2hIwBgFc

Keep this trend going (1)

giorgist (1208992) | more than 2 years ago | (#39689139)

In fact I wish somebody of authority creates a policy that all school assignments, all thesis, all research be published as Wikipedia edits. Wikipedia will become the new library of Alexandria.

Open Letter to Grantmakers on Copyright Policy (1)

Paul Fernhout (109597) | more than 2 years ago | (#39689227)

From an essay I wrote about a decade ago: http://www.pdfernhout.net/open-letter-to-grantmakers-and-donors-on-copyright-policy.html [pdfernhout.net]
"Foundations, other grantmaking agencies handling public tax-exempt dollars, and charitable donors need to consider the implications for their grantmaking or donation policies if they use a now obsolete charitable model of subsidizing proprietary publishing and proprietary research. In order to improve the effectiveness and collaborativeness of the non-profit sector overall, it is suggested these grantmaking organizations and donors move to requiring grantees to make any resulting copyrighted digital materials freely available on the internet, including free licenses granting the right for others to make and redistribute new derivative works without further permission. It is also suggested patents resulting from charitably subsidized research research also be made freely available for general use. The alternative of allowing charitable dollars to result in proprietary copyrights and proprietary patents is corrupting the non-profit sector as it results in a conflict of interest between a non-profit's primary mission of helping humanity through freely sharing knowledge (made possible at little cost by the internet) and a desire to maximize short term revenues through charging licensing fees for access to patents and copyrights. In essence, with the change of publishing and communication economics made possible by the wide spread use of the internet, tax-exempt non-profits have become, perhaps unwittingly, caught up in a new form of "self-dealing", and it is up to donors and grantmakers (and eventually lawmakers) to prevent this by requiring free licensing of results as a condition of their grants and donations. "

Re:Keep this trend going (1)

JockTroll (996521) | more than 2 years ago | (#39692065)

In fact I wish somebody of authority creates a policy that all school assignments, all thesis, all research be published as Wikipedia edits. Wikipedia will become the new library of Alexandria.

If by that you mean it's going to be the next Big Book Bonfire, you're probably right.

A nice trend (1)

proxima (165692) | more than 2 years ago | (#39689553)

Over the last several years the World Bank has been moving in this direction. It used to be that most of the World Development Indicators [worldbank.org] required a subscription. This is an extremely detailed country-level database of everything from GDP and prices to infant mortality and refugee populations. Now, the database in its entirety is free and it has been loaded into statistical applications like Stata and made available by these folks [graduateinstitute.ch] (along with other World Bank datasets).

It's been my experience that the academic-oriented economists at the World Bank try to disseminate their work as widely as possible. Still, centralized repositories for datasets and code under a reasonable CC license should only make this easier. In economics, potential journal articles tend to spend months or years as working papers while they undergo the referee process; this means that keeping up with the latest research involves relatively less access to expensive journals (compared to other disciplines) than it does with being able to easily find the latest version of a working paper. It's still a long way from being able to cut out the for-profit journals, though some open-access journals do exist [econtheory.org] .

On Economic indicators in developing countries (1)

arcite (661011) | more than 2 years ago | (#39691297)

They are mostly useless. Did World Bank predict the Arab Spring? That single event threw a monkey wrench into a dozen middle east country's economies for the next ten years. World Bank research is useless. They are no more than an economic strong arm tool of the US. This in itself is not a problem, most people acknowledge this, it is not a secret. However, the continued harmful policies that the World Bank pushes onto developing nations, such as economic policies, environmental policies, development plans, economic loans ect... continues to cause untold damage and promotes institutional corruption. Want to prove me wrong? Point to ONE success story of the World Bank. Please find ANY country they have intervened in to have a demonstrably positive effect. Answer, there is none.

Re:A nice trend (1)

dkf (304284) | more than 2 years ago | (#39691329)

It's still a long way from being able to cut out the for-profit journals, though some open-access journals do exist.

It costs some money to produce a journal and to keep it available to people long into the future. Given that, the options are to either have it paid for directly through taxes or to have it run by an organization that seeks to make a working profit. ("Non-profit" organizations do different things with that working profit than normal companies, but both are keen on not making a loss.) Instead, the real questions are 1) whether the costs should be borne by those seeking to get their research published or by those reading that research, and 2) what the right level of charges is. There's been a strong case made for changes to the standard answer to the first question, but that doesn't really address the second one which is what a lot of people are actually cross about. The key problem is that the market is naturally not very free; the extreme pressure to publish somewhere "good" creates the ability to have a monopoly pricing regime. Technology doesn't change that.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?