4 ms·
> Good journals, in theory, are more selective about what they publish, so the assumption is that if you have publications in a good one you must have done more
by ianderf 10y ago
> Good journals, in theory, are more selective about what they publish, so the assumption is that if you have publications in a good one you must have done more groundbreaking research.
I wonder why nobody created a single peer-reviewed platform for all scientists to use? Elsevier is just piggybacking on other people's work and funds.
- Vinnl 10y agoBecause there are more than a single one :) Obligatory: https://xkcd.com/927/ https://xkcd.com/927/
- ianderf 10y agoEven several different peer review systems would be much better than Elsevier.
- PeterisP 10y agoThere are many possible platforms, however, there's a significant network effect since it's very harmful to your self-interest to switch to such a platform before everyone else does and (even more importantly) all the funding agencies acknowledge that this is the thing to look at.
- tomaskafka 10y agoSo, the solution to a market taxed by a hegemon is to create even bigger hegemon? What happens when the investors and shareholders of 'even bigger hegemon' start wanting their profits? Elsevier II.