2 ms·
It actually seems reasonable for a journal that has limited space and too many submissions. What's the alternative, to accept on or two of the half proofs, and
by stevage 2y ago
It actually seems reasonable for a journal that has limited space and too many submissions. What's the alternative, to accept on or two of the half proofs, and bump one or two other papers in the process?
- jiggawatts 2y ago[flagged]
- y1n0 2y agoThat logic is absurd. You might as well consider the whole internet a journal and everything is already published, so there is nothing to complain about.
- jiggawatts 2y agoIt pretty much is the logic — except replace digital media with paper. It’s also “why” research papers can’t have color pictures or tables of raw data — because they’re expensive to print. Scientists internalised their limitations and treat these as virtues now. Limited space in printing means you have to “get in”, and that exclusivity has a cachet. They also now advise each other that photos are “not real science” (too much color!) and raw data shouldn’t be published at all. I was making a joke to highlight how inane this is in an era where I can keep every paper ever published on one hard drive. The same people that complain about negative results or reproductions not getting published will defend these limitations to the death.
- stevage 2y agoJust because the storage is free doesn't mean there's no cost. It costs everyone time to read: the editorial staff, people who subscribe to the journal, etc. It costs copyediting time. More content creates more work.