4 ms·

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.

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.