The problems described in this paper exist not only in our field but in pretty much every endeavour. Journals compete for readers and page views, authors for media mentions and H-values, and so scientific publishing is pushed toward the salacious and the sensational. With technical jargon and university press releases fueling the fire, it's not surprising so many people misinterpret so much science. What's the solution? To ban preprints or one-paragraph scientific 'letters'? No, science depends on open communication. A system of registered reports that would revolve not around the outcome but around the process? Maybe. It might not be profitable, but I think the answer is this: scientists publish anything and everything, these contributions are reviewed by scientific boards after the fact, and only those very few that are recognized as such receive the stamp of 'discoveries'.
Today: 4 Total: 100 [Direct link] [Share]
