we need journals to start indicating which articles have been rendered superfluous by more up-to-date research
-
Show this thread
-
Replying to @QuasLacrimas
The journals hope this will be taken care of by people publishing "notes" in response to the articles. Problem is, authoring notes is not a road to professional academic success, so it's largely not done.
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @red3_standingby @QuasLacrimas
What's more, I'm not sure if it should be incumbent upon, or even desirable for, the journal to designate what is the "correct" academic consensus.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @red3_standingby
yes and no - to the extent journals can claim competence to do peer review at all, they can also say “this article has everything that article had, plus a lot more”
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @QuasLacrimas
Sure, if the new article is also in their journal. Otherwise doing so would stifle their own citation rate. Reputation could matter enough for top journals to follow through on an update, but I wouldn't expect it from low ranking journals, which is where the problem tends to be.
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like
yes i understand it’s not in their (short term) interests low-ranking journals are a vile cesspool and if academics were punished for publishing in them that would be a good first step
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.