5 ms·

The current scientific publishing method is pretty much dead. It is absurd, biased, produces terrible results. Promotes inept research, unimaginable waste. Yet

The current scientific publishing method is pretty much dead. It is absurd, biased, produces terrible results. Promotes inept research, unimaginable waste. Yet dead as it might be most decision-makers and other leeches of science will pretend that it is just fine and alive. They will continue to do so for many years. Decades perhaps. It is like watching Weekend at Bernie's. This attempt of Nature is little more than holding up Bernie, waving his hand. Look, it is moving! It is not dead.

coughupalung 7y ago
How about you do something constructive instead and propose a better alternative. You're just "poisoning the well" with empty accusations and ignoring how successful the scientific method has been.
- glofish 7y ago
  It is only a poisoning if it is not true. Nature is not the problem though, they just happen to be one of the most prominent and selective publishers - many/most? people hate them because they can't get in. IMHO the entire process of scientific review is wrong. Once millions of dollars in research grants depend on a paper being "accepted", once getting a grant is a zero-sum game, the scientific review is irrevocably corrupted.
  - coughupalung 7y ago
    > It is only a poisoning if it is not true. That is literally not the definition of the "poisoning the well" logical fallacy. And if you actually did publish in Nature, congrats. You still didn't offer an alternative. Edit: fixed typo
    - glofish 7y ago
      The main post is not about alternatives though - it is about a new thing that Nature is trying out. To which I posted that the whole thing is rotten from inside I don't think this is the right avenue or thread to talk about alternatives. If you want my opinion, it is the scientific publishing model the is broken, starting right with the structure of a scientific paper. The way research papers are written dates back to a time where your only source of information was the printed paper. Every single scientific publication today is overdone, exaggerated, overly verbose and almost impossible to comprehend. If you make a single, true and noteworthy observation that helps others, you cannot publish that alone. It has to be dressed up. You have to exaggerate, dress it up, bury it deep into "more" content to make it publication-worthy. The inablity to get credit for small but important research findings is the what, in my opinion is killing science from within. The big papers are a thing of a past, but scientists cannot let go, because that's what they were taught as being important.
- chr1 7y ago
  The parent comment is not an empty accusation, but a truth known to everyone in academia. The publishers extort huge profit margins from libraries and universities without providing any useful service. See http://thecostofknowledge.com http://thecostofknowledge.com and the articles linked from it for more information.
  - coughupalung 7y ago
    That's not what the OP said though. I am in academia and most of my colleagues would agree with you about publishers. That's why most of us publish pre-prints on our websites, so that everyone can access our work. We can debate the business model but the OP is saying it produces inept research without really supporting that statement.
    - glofish 7y ago
      Would this serve as a supporting statement? Why Most Published Research Findings Are False https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/file?type=printable&id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/file?type=pri... It was true in 2005 and the situation only got worse since.
kleer001 7y ago
It's fighting our nature as social animals and base entropy, the pair of pernicious problems all intelligent creatures in the universe have to deal with. It's a hard freaking problem.

coughupalung 7y ago

How about you do something constructive instead and propose a better alternative. You're just "poisoning the well" with empty accusations and ignoring how successful the scientific method has been.

glofish 7y ago
It is only a poisoning if it is not true. Nature is not the problem though, they just happen to be one of the most prominent and selective publishers - many/most? people hate them because they can't get in. IMHO the entire process of scientific review is wrong. Once millions of dollars in research grants depend on a paper being "accepted", once getting a grant is a zero-sum game, the scientific review is irrevocably corrupted.
- coughupalung 7y ago
  > It is only a poisoning if it is not true. That is literally not the definition of the "poisoning the well" logical fallacy. And if you actually did publish in Nature, congrats. You still didn't offer an alternative. Edit: fixed typo
  - glofish 7y ago
    The main post is not about alternatives though - it is about a new thing that Nature is trying out. To which I posted that the whole thing is rotten from inside I don't think this is the right avenue or thread to talk about alternatives. If you want my opinion, it is the scientific publishing model the is broken, starting right with the structure of a scientific paper. The way research papers are written dates back to a time where your only source of information was the printed paper. Every single scientific publication today is overdone, exaggerated, overly verbose and almost impossible to comprehend. If you make a single, true and noteworthy observation that helps others, you cannot publish that alone. It has to be dressed up. You have to exaggerate, dress it up, bury it deep into "more" content to make it publication-worthy. The inablity to get credit for small but important research findings is the what, in my opinion is killing science from within. The big papers are a thing of a past, but scientists cannot let go, because that's what they were taught as being important.
chr1 7y ago
The parent comment is not an empty accusation, but a truth known to everyone in academia. The publishers extort huge profit margins from libraries and universities without providing any useful service. See http://thecostofknowledge.com http://thecostofknowledge.com and the articles linked from it for more information.
- coughupalung 7y ago
  That's not what the OP said though. I am in academia and most of my colleagues would agree with you about publishers. That's why most of us publish pre-prints on our websites, so that everyone can access our work. We can debate the business model but the OP is saying it produces inept research without really supporting that statement.
  - glofish 7y ago
    Would this serve as a supporting statement? Why Most Published Research Findings Are False https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/file?type=printable&id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124 https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/file?type=pri... It was true in 2005 and the situation only got worse since.

kleer001 7y ago

It's fighting our nature as social animals and base entropy, the pair of pernicious problems all intelligent creatures in the universe have to deal with. It's a hard freaking problem.