4 ms·
That 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.
by y1n0 2y ago
That 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.