It's true that there are a few scientific journals that publish articles without paying "publication costs" and some invite comments on line. It's a great model; generally the best work will be found regardless of where published. However the highest prestige journals, which can determine careers, are usually difficult for submitted arti…
It's true that there are a few scientific journals that publish articles without paying "publication costs" and some invite comments on line. It's a great model; generally the best work will be found regardless of where published. However the highest prestige journals, which can determine careers, are usually difficult for submitted articles to be published, the acceptance rate after peer review ranges across journals from 1% to 93% (according to Elsevier); the most exclusive are usually considered the best.
Pre-prints (not peer-reviewed) became popular during Covid since the science was heavily censored and final peer-reviewed articles were stopped if they disagreed with the Official Narratives. Most of the important work on Covid was published in pre-print form. If important, and not reproducible by other scientists, the scientific community will raise objections.
Will be interesting to see how much of this "soft corruption" is stopped. Corruption is often the most profitable approach with the course of least resistance. Largely bipartisan, at least in the past.
It's always been such a racket! The journals get the content for free and sell the same content back to academia at high prices. Now, one hears that even some of the most prestigious medical journals have been captured by big pharma. Maybe RFK Jr. will drain this part of the swamp.
Long before I became a grad student, scientists were paid by the journals for their articles. The owners of the journals eventually accepted advertising, much from Pharma, and later charged the authors to publish their work (making some papers "advertisements".)
Although not covered much by State Media, a clinical study contractor accused Pfizer of fraud with their Covid vaccine trial results. The FDA was not responsive to the whistleblower's complaint, so she eventually wrote to the British Medical Journal (prestigious!) who investigated and agreed with her. State Media attacked the BMJ as a non-credible source, like the National Enquirer (or NY Times).
It's true that there are a few scientific journals that publish articles without paying "publication costs" and some invite comments on line. It's a great model; generally the best work will be found regardless of where published. However the highest prestige journals, which can determine careers, are usually difficult for submitted articles to be published, the acceptance rate after peer review ranges across journals from 1% to 93% (according to Elsevier); the most exclusive are usually considered the best.
Pre-prints (not peer-reviewed) became popular during Covid since the science was heavily censored and final peer-reviewed articles were stopped if they disagreed with the Official Narratives. Most of the important work on Covid was published in pre-print form. If important, and not reproducible by other scientists, the scientific community will raise objections.
Will be interesting to see how much of this "soft corruption" is stopped. Corruption is often the most profitable approach with the course of least resistance. Largely bipartisan, at least in the past.
It's always been such a racket! The journals get the content for free and sell the same content back to academia at high prices. Now, one hears that even some of the most prestigious medical journals have been captured by big pharma. Maybe RFK Jr. will drain this part of the swamp.
Long before I became a grad student, scientists were paid by the journals for their articles. The owners of the journals eventually accepted advertising, much from Pharma, and later charged the authors to publish their work (making some papers "advertisements".)
Although not covered much by State Media, a clinical study contractor accused Pfizer of fraud with their Covid vaccine trial results. The FDA was not responsive to the whistleblower's complaint, so she eventually wrote to the British Medical Journal (prestigious!) who investigated and agreed with her. State Media attacked the BMJ as a non-credible source, like the National Enquirer (or NY Times).
bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635
bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635/rapid-responses