Good point, hadn't considered that!
-
-
I guess it's what you get when publishing science is a financial business. Probably not good for quality..
-
Publishing science has always been a for-profit business. Problem is the tail is wagging the dog (and the dog loves it).
-
Not necessarily always: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/27/profitable-business-scientific-publishing-bad-for-science … "You have no idea how profitable these journals are once you stop doing anything."
-
...or at least not at this scale.
-
Was going to post a link to that article. Not always for-profit, exactly, although as the article says back then stuff took ages to publish.
-
Which didn't matter so much as the hype cycle was different then (or smaller, or perhaps non-existent, although I doubt that last one).
-
Yes, the system was different in essence: "months-long backlog of articles and relied on cash handouts".
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.

