• Aniki 🌱🌿@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    It’s not unclear at all. Journals are not bastions of science any longer. They are a money making scheme for already wealthy assholes. Actual scientists and researchers have been bemoaning how shitty journals are for decades.

  • flatbield@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    I have published in peer reviewed journals and done a few reviews myself. It is not a perfect system. There are generally only a few reviewers. Typically others that have published in the journal in that area. The goal is not to check the work deeply and the tilt is to allowing and also trusting the authors. The other thing that shocked me, the authors generally pay quite a lot of money by the page to publish articles. Also not every journal is the same. Some hard to publish in and others easy. Some nonprofit and others profit making entities. The rush to publication and the publish or perish situation in science creates its own issues too.

    This is not that much a failure of science in that it was discovered pretty quickly and presumably a retraction has been made. It is comical.

    I would add that the patent system has similar issues. It is far from perfect too. Invalidating a patent is a lot more time consuming and costly and a lot less funny.

    • P03 Locke@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      The goal is not to check the work deeply and the tilt is to allowing and also trusting the authors.

      That sounds like the wrong fucking goals then. I push for detailed code reviews all the time, and encourage my peers to ask questions.