Academic publishing - pfft

Comments

• TheTechnician27@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  drivel*

  Also wait, the STOP DOING MATH template isn’t supposed to actually make a good point.

  source

  • Maroon@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Argh! my bonappletea moment.

    source

    • rain_worl@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      and your bone hurting juice moment?

      source
  • fossphi@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Always has been

    source

    • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      They have played me for an absolute fool.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• KillingAndKindess@lemmy.blahaj.zone ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Capitalism and science are wholly incompatable.

  Science, I love ya, but can we not discover/invent our way out of this mess a bit more directly?

  Also, hands of my cow piss! Its kept me cancer-free all these years for good reason!

  source
• cogitase@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  I’m kinda curious about the effects of proanthocyanidins on fecal flora.

  source

  • Zkuld@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    why did they have to be weird about it and include odor?

    source

    • NegativeInf@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Because you can study not just the effects of the supplement, but also what kind of microbes are contributing to the types of odors. This study actually seems relatively decent I think.

      source
    • Asidonhopo@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      Googled it and:

      Gut microbiota: PAs can improve the diversity of gut microbes, and can increase the abundance of beneficial bacteria while decreasing the abundance of harmful bacteria.

      Fecal odor: PAs can reduce the level of putrefactive substances in the feces, which can reduce fecal odor.

      Fecal pH: PAs can decrease fecal pH.

      Antimicrobial activity: PAs can have an antimicrobial effect on potentially pathogenic bacteria.

      Prebiotic effect: PAs can have a prebiotic effect on beneficial bacteria.

      Looks like I’m buying some seeded grapes for science!

      source
  • TheTechnician27@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Yeah, idk why that one got singled out. This is just about the effects of red wine consumption on human digestive health.

    source
  • HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    I want to know about the smell. My next door neighbor lit a match after one of my poops the other day.

    source
• daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  I’m not into Academia. But I’m aware of this issue. But I never understood why anyone will work (review) for free an article that is being used for a company for making money.

  It’s literally working for free so other people get paid. Why?

  source

  • spiffmeister@aussie.zone ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    Because if no one reviews the articles then anyone could publish junk. In highly technical fields the only people qualified to tell if something is BS science are the experts in the field, so they review and make sure the article has some merit.

    That’s not to say the reviewing process is perfect, but it does at least help to filter some amount of bs.

    source
• solsangraal@lemmy.zip ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  tell all this to the institutions that subscribe to those vultures

  source

  • Allero@lemmy.today ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    You either do that or fall behind :(

    source
• 42yeah@lemm.ee ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Obviously the one submitting the papers should not pay to influence the reviewers. Instead, it is the publishers obligation, who uses the service of the reviewers, to pay them. Just pay them the same amount if you don’t want to influence any of them & make the amount open and transparent.

  source
• Allero@lemmy.today ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Really though. You’re working for free for a publisher that executes a massive grift.

  You do it for science, kinda, but really what are they gonna do if everyone refuses?

  source
• HeyThisIsntTheYMCA@lemmy.world ⁨2⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

  Those al look like fun reads

  source