4 ms·
Reviews should be facts by definition of a review (as I use it), so the question is not begged. The incentives are 'aligned' that way because it is the only wa
by jsprogrammer 10y ago
Reviews should be facts by definition of a review (as I use it), so the question is not begged.
The incentives are 'aligned' that way because it is the only way to benefit. Publishing into an echo chamber (or void) is not science, by definition.
- apathy 10y agoYou've been out of academia for a while, I take it? Publons (mostly uncited) are the coin of the realm. I don't usually bother submitting a methods paper unless I know a few citations are in the tank, but some people publish just to get their metrics up. A lot of people, really. The more I think about it the luckier I feel not to have to continually publish jackoff papers. If I wasn't so lucky in terms of collaborators... Well, I guess I'd GTFO of academia, really. Lots of folks have to "show productivity" with bullshit papers that don't matter and no one reads. Needless to say, reviewing such papers can be a rather dull affair.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]