5 ms·

The good thing about digital publishing is that virtually no "entertaining" of authors is required of anyone. I highly doubt this 6-page paper in a low-impact S

The good thing about digital publishing is that virtually no "entertaining" of authors is required of anyone. I highly doubt this 6-page paper in a low-impact Springer journal significantly consumed anyone's electronic or physical resources. Moreover, only those who specifically seek it will ever be confronted with the paper. No one is forcing researchers to attend seminars or conferences, or otherwise disturbing them. The work is simply made available online for anyone who wants to read it. (Apparently it has already been downloaded thousands of times.) I disagree with the implication that "outdated", "debated", and "abandoned" ideas should be excluded from publication. The merits of any idea should be determined by endless, open-ended, free debate, without any deference to whatever is and is not presently "in fashion". Your broader point, about the composition of the academic community and the long tail of elderly professors occupying the limited research positions at universities, is of course a serious concern. Retracting unfashionable papers by older authors is not a solution.

salawat 6y ago
As I recall there is an example of a study that Feynman was wont to remind people of, done by a researcher back in the 30's that pretty much has never been cited once, but nevertheless goes into the great lengths one has to go to properly control for training rats. Point being, just because a study is old, doesn't mean it's useless. https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/02/the_rat_experiment_you_dont_know_about_but_should.html https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/02/the_rat_experi... Frankly, if it weren't for my absolute refusal to support the academic publishing complex and the gatekeeping of knowledge, I'd give his article a read, and would be interested in being pointed in the direction of some of the papers that have challenged his conclusions.

salawat 6y ago

As I recall there is an example of a study that Feynman was wont to remind people of, done by a researcher back in the 30's that pretty much has never been cited once, but nevertheless goes into the great lengths one has to go to properly control for training rats. Point being, just because a study is old, doesn't mean it's useless. https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/02/the_rat_experiment_you_dont_know_about_but_should.html https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2014/02/the_rat_experi... Frankly, if it weren't for my absolute refusal to support the academic publishing complex and the gatekeeping of knowledge, I'd give his article a read, and would be interested in being pointed in the direction of some of the papers that have challenged his conclusions.