3 ms·
I've always perceived the superiority of such journals to be: a) rigorous standards for whether the paper's methodology tests their hypothesis (valid science),
by randcraw 9y ago
I've always perceived the superiority of such journals to be: a) rigorous standards for whether the paper's methodology tests their hypothesis (valid science), b) high impact of the hypothesis on the field (utility).
I don't think the OP disputes this, but it does corroborate the old saw, "To make extraordinary claims, extraordinary evidence is required".
Thus perhaps the current standards for experimentation not only fail to be extraordinary, but fundamentally are inadequate.
- Vinnl 9y agoI don't think there's much reason to believe the "top" journals to have far more rigorous standards than the bulk of "just good" journals (which I'm sure have rigorous standards as well). It is plausible, though, that the research with potentially most impact gets submitted to the "top" journals first, resulting in the "just good" journals never having the chance to publish them.