Live data from Hacker News

New academic journal only publishes 'unsurprising' research rejected by others

cbc.ca

51–60 of 207 posts

Re: New academic journal only publishes 'unsurprising' research rejected by others

#51
post #32

Why don’t research groups just publish to their own websites or directories like arxiv? What’s the role of an academic journal in 2020? Honest question, I’d love to see more blogging from hard science academics but I’m wondering if there’s a reason why that’s challenging or if it’s just academic culture. We should have a Substack/OnlyFans for scientists.

Well, as for non-‘vanity journals’, I would say the anonymous peer review process. Similarly, the publishing process after the initial anon peer review process can be generative + a healthy back and forth revision process. Plus it has the potential to take you out of sub-sub discipline echo chambers w/r/t some aspects of methodologies and other approaches to even writing/explication. Largely, though, I would say from both sides, (I.e. reader and scholar), the journal and all that comes with it (I.e. peer review process, the academic press and their branding, in some disciplines the main editors can also lend something to this) lend a greater degree of credibility and confidence in the expertise of the scholar(s). I mean this in a sort of take it for what it is, the positive and the unseemly all at once, sort of way.

Re: New academic journal only publishes 'unsurprising' research rejected by others

#52
post #32

Why don’t research groups just publish to their own websites or directories like arxiv? What’s the role of an academic journal in 2020? Honest question, I’d love to see more blogging from hard science academics but I’m wondering if there’s a reason why that’s challenging or if it’s just academic culture. We should have a Substack/OnlyFans for scientists.

While we're at it, why not make public whoever audited or referred the paper? Why does that need to be secret?

We should have less transparency, not more. Right now the peer review process is single-blind, but it really should be double-blind.

Even if someone doesn't have a PhD or work at a research institution, they should be able to publish good science. Right now, that just isn't possible. And the opposite problem is also true: if you're a big shot in your field, you'll be able to find at least one journal that will publish whatever crap you submitted, regardless of the quality.

Re: New academic journal only publishes 'unsurprising' research rejected by others

#53
> Nick and Andrew did a similar experiment, they found no effects whatsoever.

> And so they send this to a journal and the response they got was, well, you know, you probably wouldn't expect an effect because this is not fairly novel information to the students. So we are not going to publish this because it's not really surprising.

I don't quite understand that example.

If every one else in their papers indeed suggested that telling students of the cost should solve the issue, and everyone believed them, then how can it be claimed that the experiment results are not surprising. The whole point was to disprove what apparently was blindly accepted because of common sense; being then told that in fact the opposite is common sense seems like a slap in the face.

I didn't read the paper, so maybe I'm missing something, but I'm not sure it's actually a good example for that journal. Had they done experiment in isolation with no preexisting notion or consensus of what might solve the graduation issue, maybe.

Re: New academic journal only publishes 'unsurprising' research rejected by others

#54
post #39
post #32

Why don’t research groups just publish to their own websites or directories like arxiv? What’s the role of an academic journal in 2020? Honest question, I’d love to see more blogging from hard science academics but I’m wondering if there’s a reason why that’s challenging or if it’s just academic culture. We should have a Substack/OnlyFans for scientists.

Speaking from my own experience in the physical sciences, labs don't self publish unsurprising results because there are only so many hours in the day and it's not worth the effort. Even just putting the results on your own website is a lot of work. Pulling all of the data together, analyzing it, putting it in visuals, writing up the results. It can be hard to justify committing that much time to something where the…

Hmm... it seems like this would be a good thing for undergrads to do in a class setting or an internship. It would give them experience writing an actual paper, albeit with null results.

Re: New academic journal only publishes 'unsurprising' research rejected by others

#55
post #40

I can see this journal being 10x-20x the size of normal journals

A very good point. My experience was that maybe 5% of the work I did made it into a publication. If I wrote up everything that didn't work, my PhD would have been 10 years instead of 5.

I sympathize, your work that was never published was probably of equal caliber to your published work, and just as valid.

Re: New academic journal only publishes 'unsurprising' research rejected by others

#56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.journalnetwork.org/journals/international-journa...

Is it normal for journals to charge a fee for publishing?

It's only normal for open access journals to charge (or making a paper in a traditional journal open-acess), as the journals cannot sell access to the article. And the fees are usually a few thousand.

Of course it's also most common for "predatory" journals to be open access and charge thousands.

Re: New academic journal only publishes 'unsurprising' research rejected by others

#57
Building off the example in the article about college students, I can attest to this: For years it's been required for colleges to be upfront and disclose the total costs, and financial literacy initiative at orientations & introductory courses have pushed the issue explaining the additional costs of taking longer than 4 years to graduate. The results have been indiscernible from prior to this.

Re: New academic journal only publishes 'unsurprising' research rejected by others

#58

We also need a journal to publish methods that failed. I did so much work during my PhD that was dead end and is not documented.

In the commercial software world you just open-source the code and hope your competitors adopt it.

Re: New academic journal only publishes 'unsurprising' research rejected by others

#59
post #32

Why don’t research groups just publish to their own websites or directories like arxiv? What’s the role of an academic journal in 2020? Honest question, I’d love to see more blogging from hard science academics but I’m wondering if there’s a reason why that’s challenging or if it’s just academic culture. We should have a Substack/OnlyFans for scientists.

> What's the role of an academic journal in 2020?

For me, trustworthiness. Not all journals are equal but some are held in such high esteem that I would grant a lot more credence to the findings of an article published in a journal than one self-published.

I have neither the time or will to assess the merits of each individual who might publish something. If a name is sufficiently big within a field, it's usually in a sufficiently big journal; on the other hand, I would treat a self-published article with the same level of skepticism as those low-tier journals that happily publish pseudoscience as fact.

Call it snobbishness if you will, and I'm fully aware that academia is full of it, but that's the role that a journal fills for me.

Re: New academic journal only publishes 'unsurprising' research rejected by others

#60
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While we're at it, why not make public whoever audited or referred the paper? Why does that need to be secret?

We should have less transparency, not more. Right now the peer review process is single-blind, but it really should be double-blind. Even if someone doesn't have a PhD or work at a research institution, they should be able to publish good science. Right now, that just isn't possible. And the opposite problem is also true: if you're a big shot in your field, you'll be able to find at least one journal that will publis…

Getting that benefit only requires double-blinding during the review process. There’s no reason that both sides of the blinding cannot be removed (and also revealed to third parties) after the review process is complete.
Post reply on HN