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?

It’s not my area of expertise (oral cancer), but I can guess.

Some authors have proposed that in humans there may be a third set of tooth organs on which this drug could be used. This theory could explain why some people get supernumerary (extra) teeth–in most people these extra organs appear to regress but in some contexts maybe they don’t. From what I can tell (again, not quite my expertise) there is not a scientific consensus on the presence or prevalence of this third set of teeth in humans or specifically human adults, which is why this treatment is primarily focused on those people whose teeth never formed–ostensibly their first or second set of tooth buds may still be present and just need to be triggered to develop.

Even if we assume that adult humans have a third set of tooth buds on which this drug could act (and that’s questionable), giving the drug in IV form would probably just make all of the buds grow, which would be problematic. But that could be reasonable for a person for whom few or no teeth had grown.

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.