4 ms·
It 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 — becaus
by jiggawatts 2y ago
It 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.