a thoughtful web.
Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment by Mindwolf
Mindwolf  ·  3764 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Science Is Not Democratic and it’s not supposed to be.

When you add the increasing number of fake scientific journals that appear (mostly from India and China) and give platform to stupid pseudoscience like oil pulling. It becomes quite disturbing.





am_Unition  ·  3764 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Twenty years ago, being "published" meant something.

Now, you can polish turd theories until no one but a scientist working in the field can refute them. Protip: Proceedings of the 8th International Symposium on Nuclei in the Cosmos isn't too great of a scientific journal.

Mindwolf  ·  3764 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I used to refute junk science by saying, "That's great. Show me the study." Now they are coming back with these junk journals. It is just making my life more difficult. I have had to change it by saying, "That's great. Show me the peer review."

am_Unition  ·  3764 days ago  ·  link  ·  
This comment has been deleted.
b_b  ·  3764 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Nature and PNAS publish bullshit, too, on occasion. I'm hopeful that the whole journal model falls apart in the next decade or so in favor of an all open access system, hopefully one brokered by NIH/NSF or perhaps the PLoS system. Subscription journals are a relic, a gift to industry, and totally out of date in the digital age.

am_Unition  ·  3764 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I think progress is inevitable, but the publishing companies still maintain their grip on science for now.

The other day I had to send out engineering drawings for signatures... physically print out E-size drawings and take them around the building. Why? Because old men, that's why. We will migrate to digital signatures, just as peer review will migrate to a digital review format, but neither will happen as soon as they should (now).