Comment on Nature is blunt.

• ArcticDagger@feddit.dk ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  No, that’s not what I said. You’re right that journals, to some extent, also lends credibility to the publication, but it’s not the source of credibility. What I said was that an article published in Nature will have many more views than an article published on a random WordPress blog.

  Again, saying that researchers “agree to have it that way” ignores the structural difficulty of changing the system by the individual. The ones who benefit the most from changing the system are also the ones most dependent on external funding - that is, young researchers. Publishing in low-impact journals (ones that has a small outreach such as most open-access journals) makes it much harder to apply for funding

  source

  • Comment105@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    It’s not what you wanted to say, but it is what the words you wrote effectively meant.

    Nature doesn’t lend you credibility. You and your colleagues read Nature because it’s how you filter out the unserious.
    Researchers agree to have it that way. I will not yield on that argument. You do, you agree to it by majority to this day.

    source

    • kevin@mander.xyz ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      By this logic, you and everyone else agree to climate change. Everyone in Venezuela agrees to Maduro.

      It has nothing to do with majority, it’s a collective action and balance of power.

      source
    • ArcticDagger@feddit.dk ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      That’s okay. If you view the journals as glorified blogs, I agree that they’re unnecessary. They aren’t and do more than that even though they’re also doing a lot of bad stuff with sky high profit margins. If you’re not open for changing your views, I don’t see the point of discussing any more. Appreciate the back and forth, tho!

      source