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.
New academic journal only publishes 'unsurprising' research rejected by others
51–60 of 207 posts
Re: New academic journal only publishes 'unsurprising' research rejected by others
#52Why 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?
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> 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
#54Why 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…
Re: New academic journal only publishes 'unsurprising' research rejected by others
#55I 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.
Re: New academic journal only publishes 'unsurprising' research rejected by others
#56Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://www.journalnetwork.org/journals/international-journa...
Is it normal for journals to charge a fee for publishing?
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
#57Re: New academic journal only publishes 'unsurprising' research rejected by others
#58We 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.
Re: New academic journal only publishes 'unsurprising' research rejected by others
#59Why 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.
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
#60Earlier 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…