5 ms·

There’s some good. e.g. Nature editors in general have their heads screwed on. How do we preserve that?

ecshafer 4y ago
Why do we need editors for scientific journals? They are an unnecessary gatekeeper, people can read a paper and decide for themselves. The peer review process is independent of the editors. And the system of gatekeepers is what has helped push the publish or perish aspects of academia.
- eldaisfish 4y ago
  Be careful when wishing for absolutes. Editors serve a vital role as the first line of defence against BS publications. They are vital gatekeepers and separate the wheat from the chaff. The problem is the likes of Elsevier and their outrageous profit margins.
  - raxxorraxor 4y ago
    I think they have the same flaws as newspaper editors, their own bias can lead to false data and science. If they are required we would still need a mechanism for control. We just need a better system for QA in general.
- endisneigh 4y ago
  Is anyone forcing scientists to publish in journals?
  - _yb2s 4y ago
    Yes, science careers are highly competitive, and evaluated based on the journals you publish in. If you don't publish in top journals, you are out.
    - endisneigh 4y ago
      You can be a scientist without publishing in top journals.
      - nordsieck 4y ago
        > You can be a scientist without publishing in top journals. But you can't be a scientist without obtaining grant money. And publishing - particularly in top journals - is the major way to accomplish that.
        endisneigh 4y ago
        You can be a scientist without grant money, though. Most “scientists” are not published in these so called top journals.
        dncjvhvusy 4y ago
        Last I checked a scientist can be anyone that does research.
        8bitsrule 4y ago
        Research can be done well or poorly. Good research with no outlet is not worth a whole lot more. Fine example: Newton needed an angel to get Principia Mathematica published. It was edited, paid-for and seen through press by Edmond Halley. (Halley was not rich. He was lucky that it sold.) https://web.archive.org/web/20120512123330/http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/history/Biographies/Halley.html https://web.archive.org/web/20120512123330/http://www-groups...
        asdff 4y ago
        People in academia know the game with the top impact factor journals, and they understand that there is plenty of great science that occurs outside of those journals.
  - rtsil 4y ago
    The entire academic system forces them. Hence the phrase "Publish or Perish".
    - endisneigh 4y ago
      You can be a scientist without involving yourself with the broken American higher Ed system. Additionally there are journals that do not charge for access.
      - anigbrowl 4y ago
        Sure, but if the kind of science or research you do costs money and you are not independently wealthy, then you will have to have to beg for patronage in the form of grant funding or an endowment. And since it's hard for non-specialists to evaluate the quality of your claims, your record of publications and citations will probably be treated as a proxy for the quality of your ideas.
        endisneigh 4y ago
        That may be true, but submitting to a paid journal isn’t necessary, still. Scientists can and do cite and publish independent of the large publications. Arxiv being an example.
        anigbrowl 4y ago
        Sure, if your work is theoretical or you already have the lab equipment you need. I see your point, but you are being a little unrealistic to ignore that some kinds of research costs money to conduct, in materials, equipment, travel, or rental and storage costs.
      - PeterisP 4y ago
        In many fields doing science requires a team and equipment, and in all fields doing science requires being able to sustain yourself while spending most of your time on science. All of that requires funding, which almost universally (not limited to American higher Ed system) requires demonstrating that your science is accepted by being published in respected peer-reviewed venues, and if it's only self-published then it's considered not worthy (and there indeed is a big correlation for that) and results in you being denied the means to continue to do science. In essence, science gets validated by being published in selective places which demonstrably filter out most of the chaff (and a lot of science-like products should get filtered out - even in this domain attention is scarcer than content, so almost nobody wants to read things that haven't passed a certain filter) and if something gets published in a less selective venue, the general assumption (again, strongly correlated with reality) is that it wasn't good enough to get published in a better one. Technically, of course, you can be a scientist without involving yourself with all that, if you're independently wealthy and/or doing it as a hobby in addition to your main job. Science used to be done that way (e.g. by bored educated aristocrats), but I think we have a strong consensus that the world would be worse than the current situation if there would be a de facto limitation to doing science only by those who can self-fund it.
- thrdbndndn 4y ago
  I haven't form my opinion on the gatekeeping nature of the academic journals, so I won't comment on that. But editors surely are needed for purposes like, well, editing, and all the administrative tasks? They are at least as useful as the secretaries at your companies (i.e. very).
- asdff 4y ago
  Editors are essential for jockeying the peer reviewers. It does happen sometimes where you get a malicious peer reviewer. Maybe they don't understand the science, maybe the conclusions disagree with ones from their own work, maybe you are scooping their current work without realizing it, or maybe they just have an axe to grind with your principle investigator. I've seen it happen and it can be ugly, but the editor serves as a backstop here. They can look at what both of you are saying as the adult in the room, and usually they assign a new reviewer. Editors are also the whip for lazy reviewers, since they set the deadlines.
civilized 4y ago
- Academics resign en masse from journal boards for whom they perform unpaid labor and form their own lightweight nonprofit groups. - The purpose of these nonprofit groups is to select submissions for peer review and acceptance to their "journal". - The "journal" can be simply a website with a list of links to the arXiv. Hosting and serving the articles is optional. Versions of this plan have already been successfully executed by academics, perhaps most famously in the editorial revolts against Elsevier's topology journals [1]. The associated nonprofits continue to operate the new open access journals successfully [2,3]. These organizations don't just outsource to arXiv, but you could if you were a group of busy academics who wanted to keep it as simple and lightweight as possible. [1] https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=442 https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=442 [2] https://msp.org/ https://msp.org/ [3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Topology https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Topology

Why do we need editors for scientific journals? They are an unnecessary gatekeeper, people can read a paper and decide for themselves. The peer review process is independent of the editors. And the system of gatekeepers is what has helped push the publish or perish aspects of academia.

eldaisfish 4y ago
Be careful when wishing for absolutes. Editors serve a vital role as the first line of defence against BS publications. They are vital gatekeepers and separate the wheat from the chaff. The problem is the likes of Elsevier and their outrageous profit margins.
- raxxorraxor 4y ago
  I think they have the same flaws as newspaper editors, their own bias can lead to false data and science. If they are required we would still need a mechanism for control. We just need a better system for QA in general.
endisneigh 4y ago
Is anyone forcing scientists to publish in journals?
- _yb2s 4y ago
  Yes, science careers are highly competitive, and evaluated based on the journals you publish in. If you don't publish in top journals, you are out.
  - endisneigh 4y ago
    You can be a scientist without publishing in top journals.
    - nordsieck 4y ago
      > You can be a scientist without publishing in top journals. But you can't be a scientist without obtaining grant money. And publishing - particularly in top journals - is the major way to accomplish that.
      - endisneigh 4y ago
        You can be a scientist without grant money, though. Most “scientists” are not published in these so called top journals.
      - dncjvhvusy 4y ago
        Last I checked a scientist can be anyone that does research.
        8bitsrule 4y ago
        Research can be done well or poorly. Good research with no outlet is not worth a whole lot more. Fine example: Newton needed an angel to get Principia Mathematica published. It was edited, paid-for and seen through press by Edmond Halley. (Halley was not rich. He was lucky that it sold.) https://web.archive.org/web/20120512123330/http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/history/Biographies/Halley.html https://web.archive.org/web/20120512123330/http://www-groups...
      - asdff 4y ago
        People in academia know the game with the top impact factor journals, and they understand that there is plenty of great science that occurs outside of those journals.
- rtsil 4y ago
  The entire academic system forces them. Hence the phrase "Publish or Perish".
  - endisneigh 4y ago
    You can be a scientist without involving yourself with the broken American higher Ed system. Additionally there are journals that do not charge for access.
    - anigbrowl 4y ago
      Sure, but if the kind of science or research you do costs money and you are not independently wealthy, then you will have to have to beg for patronage in the form of grant funding or an endowment. And since it's hard for non-specialists to evaluate the quality of your claims, your record of publications and citations will probably be treated as a proxy for the quality of your ideas.
      - endisneigh 4y ago
        That may be true, but submitting to a paid journal isn’t necessary, still. Scientists can and do cite and publish independent of the large publications. Arxiv being an example.
        anigbrowl 4y ago
        Sure, if your work is theoretical or you already have the lab equipment you need. I see your point, but you are being a little unrealistic to ignore that some kinds of research costs money to conduct, in materials, equipment, travel, or rental and storage costs.
    - PeterisP 4y ago
      In many fields doing science requires a team and equipment, and in all fields doing science requires being able to sustain yourself while spending most of your time on science. All of that requires funding, which almost universally (not limited to American higher Ed system) requires demonstrating that your science is accepted by being published in respected peer-reviewed venues, and if it's only self-published then it's considered not worthy (and there indeed is a big correlation for that) and results in you being denied the means to continue to do science. In essence, science gets validated by being published in selective places which demonstrably filter out most of the chaff (and a lot of science-like products should get filtered out - even in this domain attention is scarcer than content, so almost nobody wants to read things that haven't passed a certain filter) and if something gets published in a less selective venue, the general assumption (again, strongly correlated with reality) is that it wasn't good enough to get published in a better one. Technically, of course, you can be a scientist without involving yourself with all that, if you're independently wealthy and/or doing it as a hobby in addition to your main job. Science used to be done that way (e.g. by bored educated aristocrats), but I think we have a strong consensus that the world would be worse than the current situation if there would be a de facto limitation to doing science only by those who can self-fund it.
thrdbndndn 4y ago
I haven't form my opinion on the gatekeeping nature of the academic journals, so I won't comment on that. But editors surely are needed for purposes like, well, editing, and all the administrative tasks? They are at least as useful as the secretaries at your companies (i.e. very).
asdff 4y ago
Editors are essential for jockeying the peer reviewers. It does happen sometimes where you get a malicious peer reviewer. Maybe they don't understand the science, maybe the conclusions disagree with ones from their own work, maybe you are scooping their current work without realizing it, or maybe they just have an axe to grind with your principle investigator. I've seen it happen and it can be ugly, but the editor serves as a backstop here. They can look at what both of you are saying as the adult in the room, and usually they assign a new reviewer. Editors are also the whip for lazy reviewers, since they set the deadlines.

civilized 4y ago

- Academics resign en masse from journal boards for whom they perform unpaid labor and form their own lightweight nonprofit groups. - The purpose of these nonprofit groups is to select submissions for peer review and acceptance to their "journal". - The "journal" can be simply a website with a list of links to the arXiv. Hosting and serving the articles is optional. Versions of this plan have already been successfully executed by academics, perhaps most famously in the editorial revolts against Elsevier's topology journals [1]. The associated nonprofits continue to operate the new open access journals successfully [2,3]. These organizations don't just outsource to arXiv, but you could if you were a group of busy academics who wanted to keep it as simple and lightweight as possible. [1] https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=442 https://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=442 [2] https://msp.org/ https://msp.org/ [3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Topology https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_of_Topology