Science Memes

10970 readers

2329 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.

Rules

Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
Keep it rooted (on topic).
No spam.
Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.

Research Committee

[email protected]

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

1407

✨️ Finish him. ✨️ (mander.xyz)

submitted 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

246 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Part 1: https://mander.xyz/post/13579080

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 71 points 5 months ago (26 children)

She's wrong though, everything following the scientific method is science. The fact that you didn't pay out of your ass to publicize your research doesn't matter. Of course it reaches less people, but that's a separate issue.

[–] [email protected] 18 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (13 children)

Does it require independent peer review though? How do you achieve that ~~with~~ without publication? The predatory publication system is a different point.

Edit: fix without

[–] [email protected] 21 points 5 months ago (12 children)

Wouldn't this imply that science didn't exist before academic publication existed? Was zero science conducted before the ~1600s then?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

Well you're not entirely incorrect with that assumption. What we call science today is actually the Scientific Method Which is a much more skeptical approach to science than the earlier methods, hence the credibility. I like many others agree that the fees built into the system is quiet absurd and the process is not perfect, but currently that is the only legit way to get others evaluate your research.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 5 months ago

The word "legit" there is doing alot of work.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I ask with genuine curiosity, as I am not an academic and come from a software development mindset

Why is paid-for services the only "legit" way to get others to evaluate your research? Why is it not kosher to publicly publish your research, and simply invite peers to evaluate it? This idea is essentially the entire process behind Open Source Software, and is the backbone of most modern tools/programs/apps/software/linux development.

What does paying a publishing company provide you, as a researcher, that makes it worth it?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 5 months ago

I don't know what to tell you man, sometimes even I wonder if it's worth it at all. Publishing to a journal is such a difficult task. Before submitting your paper you need the approval of two other well-established individuals. Then you send in your paper to your selected journal and each one has some specific format and policies, which many are arbitrary and inthe end of the day depends on the person reviewing your paper. This can take weeks of back and forth.

However if you think you did something noteworthy, as far as I know, this is how you get it in front of the eyes of your peers. Even then there's a chance that your paper gets ignored lol.

So like many others in this thread, I'm not a fan of this process because even though it's strict, a lot of bs still passes through

load more comments (9 replies)

load more comments (21 replies)