Comment

tetris11@lemmy.ml ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

It’s a numbers game.

X submits paper to Journal 1, and peers A,B,C reject it.
X submits paper with minor changes to Journal 2, and only peers D and E reject it.
X submits paper with minor changes to Journal 3, and only peer G rejects it
X submits paper with minor changes to Journal 4, and no one rejects it.

Science.

Sort:hotnew top

Catoblepas@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
Did peer F get murdered for indicating they were going to reject the paper? 🔍🧐

source
- tetris11@lemmy.ml ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  peer F accepted the paper
  
  source
  - ulterno@lemmy.kde.social ⁨4⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    F
    
    To doubt
    
    source
Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.win ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
He typed using technology that wouldn’t exist but for Science.

source
- tetris11@lemmy.ml ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
  I believe in the scientific method. I believe in peer review. I just don’t like that scientific journals have become so commodified that a lesser journal would accept volumes of bad science and bad review in order to boost its rankings whilst boosting the prestige of the scientists who is measured on the quantity of their work and not the quality.
  
  Entire paper mills exist purely for this reason, and it’s a scourge on the scientific community.
  
  source
  - Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.win ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    Fair. TY for clarifying
    
    source
    Psychodelic@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
    Yeah that wasn’t at all the impression I got from their first comment
    
    source
MotoAsh@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago
NOT science. At all. That’s publication and clout. Two things science distinctly is NOT, but needs because information must still disseminate in some way.

source