4 ms·

As a nonsense phrase of shady provenance makes the rounds, Elsevier defends it

61 points by domofutu 2y ago

codeulike 2y ago
vegetative electron microscopy
aredox 2y ago
RetractionWatch and others (Elisabeth Bik and a small group of science sleuths) are doing the work that institutions (Elsevier, but also national science orgs and schools) routinely fail to do. What a sad state of affairs.
- sevensor 2y ago
  Current grad students sometimes ask why I never publish. Mostly laziness, to be sure. But also, if I’m going to spend months polishing up a paper, why on earth would I subject it to the academic publishing fiasco when I’m not an academic?
- yummypaint 2y ago
  This is the problem with monopolistic for-profit publishers. They have little incentive to fulfill their structural role once they don't need to compete for subscriptions. Researchers are still the heart of peer review but our time and funding are squeezed and parasitized from every direction. Billion dollar publishers who contribute almost nothing to the scientific process are carried on the backs of researchers making $60k/year or less who could be making double in industry. Much progress has been made in spite of elsevier. If the money they effectively take away from science were instead put into grants to fund more of this kind of detective work everything would be better.
  - mcphage 2y ago
    > If the money they effectively take away from science were instead put into grants Whelp.
ConspiracyFact 2y ago
>The publisher told us it was “content” with the wording. They're content. They're just chillin'. Just veggin'.
tommiegannert 2y ago
The comment section is funny. The first 3-4 comments complain about the screenshot showing a column break, failing to notice it's from the suspected 1959 origin paper. I can't tell what the publishing time was, but the first two comments are within eight minutes of each other. The third is an hour later. Sensible comments didn't start to trickle in until six hours later. How many of those comments are from bots, and maybe human trolls?

61 points by domofutu 2y ago

vegetative electron microscopy

RetractionWatch and others (Elisabeth Bik and a small group of science sleuths) are doing the work that institutions (Elsevier, but also national science orgs and schools) routinely fail to do. What a sad state of affairs.

sevensor 2y ago
Current grad students sometimes ask why I never publish. Mostly laziness, to be sure. But also, if I’m going to spend months polishing up a paper, why on earth would I subject it to the academic publishing fiasco when I’m not an academic?
yummypaint 2y ago
This is the problem with monopolistic for-profit publishers. They have little incentive to fulfill their structural role once they don't need to compete for subscriptions. Researchers are still the heart of peer review but our time and funding are squeezed and parasitized from every direction. Billion dollar publishers who contribute almost nothing to the scientific process are carried on the backs of researchers making $60k/year or less who could be making double in industry. Much progress has been made in spite of elsevier. If the money they effectively take away from science were instead put into grants to fund more of this kind of detective work everything would be better.
- mcphage 2y ago
  > If the money they effectively take away from science were instead put into grants Whelp.

ConspiracyFact 2y ago

>The publisher told us it was “content” with the wording. They're content. They're just chillin'. Just veggin'.

tommiegannert 2y ago

The comment section is funny. The first 3-4 comments complain about the screenshot showing a column break, failing to notice it's from the suspected 1959 origin paper. I can't tell what the publishing time was, but the first two comments are within eight minutes of each other. The third is an hour later. Sensible comments didn't start to trickle in until six hours later. How many of those comments are from bots, and maybe human trolls?