I think this dovetails somewhere with the scientific publishing discussions that have been popping up on HN. I’m not an academic, so I don’t have very strong o

I think this dovetails somewhere with the scientific publishing discussions that have been popping up on HN. I’m not an academic, so I don’t have very strong opinions, but from just reading about it at a surface level it feels like there are solvable problems in that system besides copyright and profit margins. Publication builds “eminence” (publish-or-perish), determines eminence and (as this article suggests) is determined by eminence. Meanwhile, the system of publication is based against null results & repetitive/conformational experiments. This actually keeps valuable data out of the scientific body of knowledge in ways that harm the mission. There are other issues that have more to do with the book-like format of articles. Could review be separated from publishing (so that publication can be multiple)? Could publications (that do not emit null results) be structured in a way that embeds meta-study by default? Basically, what does science want/need from publication. Is it just the current model but free (beer & love) or something bigger?