3 ms·
I agree that it's wrong when peer reviewers abuse their position (and they certainly do), but pre-publication review keeps the number of publications down, whic
by tgv 4y ago
I agree that it's wrong when peer reviewers abuse their position (and they certainly do), but pre-publication review keeps the number of publications down, which once was necessary: a journal has a limited number of pages. You could argue that is a thing of the past, but imagine every article being published. We're already drowning in a sea of mostly wrong articles.
- a_bonobo 4y agoover the past 5-10 years my field biology has embraced preprints, with some famous papers remaining as preprints (most famously, I'd say, is the BWA-MEM paper). Most preprints I see are of decent quality, certainly higher than what gets published in MDPI et al. Every article is already getting published and the world hasn't ended yet :)
- akasakahakada 4y agoIncreasing number of researchers ar e now citing papers directly from arxiv instead of some xxx society or xxx university journal.
- akasakahakada 4y agoSorry but science community need more papers indeed. For example only successful novel results are being published, but not those others who are doing validation jobs. Although some are frauds, but their theory is new, they get passed. No one bother to test the theory because no journal will accept such boring validation paper. Last thing to mention is that the count of pages do not matter. It is not an excuse to refuse to publish great work from scientist.
- toss1 4y agoAt this point, it seems best to lose the illusion that peer review produces any consistent or meaningful floor on academic paper quality. Better to have an acknowledged reality that, until some time has passed with legitimate comments, updates, and ideally reproduction, the published papers are to be regarded with full skepticism.