489
womp womp (mander.xyz)
top 38 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] ArcticDagger@feddit.dk 3 points 4 hours ago
[-] improvise3020@ani.social 5 points 5 hours ago

Just publish preprints first

[-] serenissi@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago

This, also publish subscriber only and secretly upload to sci-hub

[-] leanleft@lemmy.ml 6 points 9 hours ago

and we wonder why the USA has a tendency toward anti-science.

[-] ursakhiin@beehaw.org 26 points 20 hours ago

Real talk, what is the real barrier to somebody creating a competing publishing firm for these things.

I'm not a scientist, but I always hear about how expensive it is to either publish or get access to scientific papers without contacting the author directly. Why does that reputation exist? Why does it seem like the scientific community is so dependent on stuff like this?

[-] Yeller_king@reddthat.com 5 points 3 hours ago

Because academic institutions only award promotions to people who publish in certain journals. Disseminating knowledge is not the goal, because administrators/accrediting bodies are unable/unwilling to assess the value of intellectual contributions. They outsource this to journals which are expected to ensure that research is "legitimate". I'd argue that they are very ineffective at this, but it still gives decision-makers an easy heuristic to use when they wanna see "number go up".

[-] DankOfAmerica@reddthat.com 3 points 4 hours ago

Tenure-track professors typically have a time limit to prove their worthiness of tenure. At the end of that limit, they apply for tenure and either get accepted or practically fired. One way to prove your value is by publishing in "high-impact" journals. There are all sorts of methods to measure the impact of a journal objectively, such as how often its articles are cited in other articles whose impact scores are also measured. These professors that are in serious debt and have spent their entire lives aiming for this position are practically prisoners trying to get out of the whole they inadvertently dug themselves into. A lot of publications are by those professors, so they are aiming for the highest possible impact scores.

Another group is made up of highly acclaimed professors. They all know each other personally and sit on the editorial boards of those high impact journals. Before they officially submit an article, they send it to their colleague that's on the board or knows someone on the board for review, make revisions, then submit for publication. This likely leads to a bias I like to call "a hook up". These professors practically own the journal, so they have no reason to start a new one.

The rest of the professors (mid-level tenured professors) would be the ones likely to create a new journal that isn't privately owned by a publishing company. Being mid-level and tenured, their only drive to excel is their personal desire to improve the field, so they're not as driven by necessity as the tenure-track or personal drive to excel as the highly acclaimed professors. This, it doesn't really happen because there's no push for it.

I think it is because we humans are not rational.

In a free market society, over time, every seller would charge for their service as much as they can. And the service they themselves use, will in turn charge them as much as they can.

This would be an optimal system, if only humans were rational creatures. When prices for a service increase too much, we should stop using it and go for alternatives, which would create more incentives for competition to grow and prices to come down etc.

But i think, we don't think rationally. Sometimes, even when we know something is bad for us, we still do it cuz of lack of self control or other reasons.

[-] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 26 points 19 hours ago

Its mainly the prestige.

No one would care if you wrote some unknown tabloid on your resume.

[-] vonbaronhans@midwest.social 14 points 20 hours ago

I'm no expert on the topic, but Nature is an exception rather than the rule, given its history and prestige.

Academic journals were around well before the Internet. Real capital investment was required to review applications, provide editing advice, typesetting, printing, and distribution. All of those are still things, now with additional online publishing, which also has its own technology costs.

What's wild and out of whack, of course, is that peer reviewers generally aren't paid, submitters pay to get published, and readers also pay for access. Other than the relatively minimal office staff to keep things running, there's very little overhead. So why is it so damn expensive?

I think the answer is that they can get away with it. You can publish in an open source journal for free, of course, but there may or may not be quality control. Plus, it's an attention economy. If you publish in Science or Nature, you're almost certainly getting prestige that can turbo boost your career because that many people will see and likely cite your work.

And on and on it goes. I think we would pretty strong regulations to stop this system.

[-] Chakravanti@monero.town 2 points 8 hours ago

In short, they're thieves ripping off science by stealing from the laborers proving determination and trading their work over the people doing the labor of verification while picking their wallets to boot.

[-] vonbaronhans@midwest.social 1 points 6 hours ago

That is a much more succinct way of putting it without any real loss of accuracy.

[-] Chakravanti@monero.town 1 points 3 hours ago

Thanks. I can't believe I did all that in one sentance correctto boot. Technically, anyway.

[-] SubArcticTundra@lemmy.ml 65 points 1 day ago

You could perspnally deliver physical copies to universities across the country for that money.

[-] RandomVideos@programming.dev 38 points 23 hours ago

You could buy 42300 loaves of bread with that money

[-] Hellstormy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 33 points 23 hours ago

And probably like several cartons of eggs!

[-] RandomVideos@programming.dev 22 points 22 hours ago

63450 eggs!

Keep in mind that i am using romanian prices, the numbers may be much lower for other countries (for example, in the USA, you could probably only afford 3 eggs with that money)

[-] skulblaka@sh.itjust.works 12 points 21 hours ago

19,802 eggs calculated using the price of a dozen eggs at my closest supermarket ($7.69).

[-] thespcicifcocean@lemmy.world 5 points 10 hours ago

$7.69

jesus, at this rate you might just start raiding local bird nests instead

[-] dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 5 hours ago

$13 for a dozen at wal mart here in Columbus Ohio. Over a dollar per egg lol.

[-] SL3wvmnas@discuss.tchncs.de 11 points 13 hours ago

Holy shit my expensive vegan alternative to eggs costs half that for 20 oz ( roughly equiv to 12 eggs I think?) where I live. Hope you do well.

[-] Whats_your_reasoning@lemmy.world 4 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

Some fools will reflexively downvote any time they see the word “vegan,” yet I wouldn’t be surprised if knowledge of egg alternatives ends up making a difference in times like these.

With agricultural workers being deported and tariffs increasing the price of food sourced from abroad, Americans are going to have to get creative and flexible with their food habits. We don’t know yet how our grocery store shelves will end up looking, but if someone needs a substitute for an ingredient in a recipe, chances are a group of people already avoids that ingredient and thus has the knowledge of how to work around it. They may be vegan, they may have food allergies, they may have religious restrictions, or they may simply dislike a particular ingredient. Regardless of their reasons, the point is they’ve already experimented with recipes to figure out what works, which means the rest of us don’t have to trial & error everything ourselves.

[-] dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

This is how we get to things in v for vendetta where it's like "I haven't had real butter in a decade" because it's so expensive (because animal byproduct) and only the oligarchs can afford it

I want to boycott for profit journals and only publish in non-profit ones.

[-] toynbee@lemmy.world 27 points 1 day ago

What is MECFS? I assume I could look it up, but it seems likely you would welcome the chance to elucidate.

[-] PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world 17 points 20 hours ago

Well shit, I need to call my wife. The diagnostic criteria reads like an exact list of everything she has experienced in the past two years…

It’s the most common presentation of long COVID

[-] toynbee@lemmy.world 19 points 1 day ago

I see.

Thank you.

[-] BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 13 points 1 day ago

I don't have the tweet so here's my guess for 🧵 2/10.

[-] pineapplelover@lemm.ee 2 points 5 hours ago
[-] BodyBySisyphus@hexbear.net 2 points 5 hours ago

Autopipette tips. Wet lab work will consume a lot of 'em.

this post was submitted on 03 Feb 2025
489 points (97.7% liked)

Science Memes

11861 readers
2048 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS