3 ms·
And desperate to retain their relevance in the face of the onslaught of advancements that open access papers has unleashed.
by matt123456789 3y ago
And desperate to retain their relevance in the face of the onslaught of advancements that open access papers has unleashed.
- schleck8 3y agoSo to retain their relevance you claim they abandon academic standards and sensationalize an openly accessible study that anyone can read and thus dispute the article. Okay.
- robertlagrant 3y agoAnyone can read but most press will read and believe the abstract, and write breathless articles on it.
- dotnet00 3y agoIt isn't exactly unheard of for them to do that. They'll just wipe their hands of it afterwards if it turns out to be bad science by saying that their goal isn't to publish research that's guaranteed correct.
- caddemon 3y agoI don't think it is quite that intentional, but just as human economic systems regularly create bubbles there are blind spots in the academic science collective. People desperately want to get in on LLMs right now.
- jltsiren 3y agoThat's a category error. You don't submit your manuscript to a prestige journal in order to publish it but to take advantage of their PR machinery. The services Nature provides are very good and cost-effective, but you have to meet their standards. As research papers, the papers published in Nature/Science/etc. are rarely that useful. Because the journals target the general scientifically literate audience, the interesting details are usually hidden in supplementary material. And the supplements are often little more than giant info dumps that nobody has paid sufficient attention to. It would be nice to live in a world where such PR services are unnecessary, but that's not the world we are living in. The academia is very competitive, and there is never enough funding and never enough good jobs.