I'll preface by saying I'm only a sysadmin with a love of science, but I learned the most about peer review and scientific publishing while working in biotech a

I'll preface by saying I'm only a sysadmin with a love of science, but I learned the most about peer review and scientific publishing while working in biotech at a genetics company. At some point I realized I actually had to have some understanding of the science to properly admin it, and began reading lots of papers, and I slowly started to realize just how bad many papers are. There are a few key issues: 1. Scientists who "collaborate" with other scientists but do a small fraction of actual work get their names on papers as number fodder. Anytime I hear "I've been published in over 1000 journal articles" now I generally become more skeptical. 2. Lack of reproducibility. Not only in the methods and the documentation of the methods, but also the fact that most things just simply aren't even tested by a third party. 3. Publishing. They have far too long locked up information the public deserves to know, which is bad enough, but then they do a bad job of it and allow bad science in. The largest part of the problem imho because they created the situation that semi forces the scientists into questionable paper writing tactics.