On the #enshitification of #academic#publishing. Where scientists burn the candle at both ends, paying to read and publish their work, in what is the ultimate grift.
"One can argue that the vast amount of research published today is either fake or only there to boost someone’s h-index, not the creative enterprise which is science. "
One CAN argue that but one would be making a generalization and one might get slapped silly for doing that. My h-index is somewhere in the 40's but that's because I do team science and I end up as an author on consortium projects. We don't pick and choose, we publish what we have.
@mycotropic@academicchatter@pluralistic All these issues contribute to the problem. But what I highlighted was the fact that the financial model can be seen as the ultimate grift, where authors pay twice (whatever their incentives).
Here's the problem... we often say we want to move away from glam publishing. But how many of those retraction were in the top journals, and how many in Hindawi, MDPI and Frontiers? For me, the papers I trust enough to bother to read are in the journals I trust. Not quite the Natures or the sciences, but the trusted disciplinary journals. Th we genome biologies and molecular cells. But this feeds journal based judgements.
Add comment