3 ms·
> Agreed, but maybe the issue here is journals shouldn't be prestigious. I understand journals' historical usefulness, but the Internet has made them obsolete.
by tathougies 7y ago
> Agreed, but maybe the issue here is journals shouldn't be prestigious. I understand journals' historical usefulness, but the Internet has made them obsolete.
Prestige and historical usefulness are practically synonyms. You're arguing that prestige shouldn't command respect, but this is like arguing against human nature.
"Science" should recognize its importance to the world at large and take extra care to publish failures of replications of papers that it reports. The more prestigious the journal, the more carefully they ought to follow this proscription, especially if they wish to maintain their prestige.
- dmix 7y agoAgreed, the whole narrative of the internet democratizing things has been largely overstated and poorly supported. So many of the existing social and industry hierarchies were merely replicated on the Internet. As we see with all the popular print newspapers and magazines often being equally or more successfully online. Maybe there were hierarchies for a reason and they were a good thing. Rather it's about building the better hierarchies rather than replacing them entirely with some academic idealistic pipedream (ditto for markets in economics).
- Dowwie 7y agoWidespread adoption of the internet has dramatically changed the world. "Democratization" was an early term used to describe the opportunities of the early internet and it remains ongoing. There have been many great collective accomplishments in the last 20 years that are indicative of that democratization.