103
submitted 1 week ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago

Oh, absolutely. There is still quality science being done. But the increase in volume is aided by trash journals since the bar is so low to publish in them.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 1 week ago

I'll definitely agree that we have a problem with boatloads of crap science being published every day. Also, I'm under no illusion that the articles I've rejected were never published. They were likely just published in some predatory journal with no peer review instead. I've actually hear of people coming across articles they've rejected published verbatim in some obscure journal they'd never heard of before.

Luckily, most people working in a field know what journals are trustworthy, and are themselves capable of recognising bullshit when they come across it. Unluckily, very few journalists and laypeople have the same insight.

I've fantasised about a model where governments go together to finance a series of open-access journals. This could finally end the chokehold that modern reputable journals have on academia, and serve to provide broader access to quality science to journalists and the population at large.

[-] [email protected] 1 points 5 days ago

Some countries are already moving in this direction with SciELO in Latin America and Plan S in Europe forcing open-acess publishing for publicly funded reserch, but the academic incentive structure still rewards publishing in high-impact paywalled journals.

this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2025
103 points (100.0% liked)

science

20367 readers
549 users here now

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

rule #1: be kind

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS