Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

anymorenevermore t1_j0pnrz1 wrote

Reply to comment by Celmeno in [R] Getting arXiv article published. Endorsement needed, cs. by No-Stay9943

Gatekeeping at its finest.

"Hey you, patent clerk why do you want to publish at Annalen der Physik if you are not a researcher huh huh?"

Publishing a good preprint to arxiv has all the benefits and 0 cost, and it is not only for people publishing for conferences

17

Celmeno t1_j0pocem wrote

Where did I imply I was gatekeeping? I was just stating that I don't think it is worth the effort to write a paper if it will stay on arxiv

−8

7366241494 t1_j0q967r wrote

That is a selfish view of science. Some people just want to expand our knowledge available to everyone. It has nothing to do with fame or a career.

Most of the papers I read come from arxiv, and I find it annoying that anything in science should be paywalled. IMO we need more open review and less gatekeeping. I don’t care much about official paid peer review. I’ve found basic mistakes in source code in areas that weren’t even mentioned in the paper (e.g. preprocessing) Can’t trust peer review anyway.

4

Celmeno t1_j0qaw0s wrote

You seem to have no idea about the scientific process. But that's okay. Not everyone has to know everything. I did not argue against putting it out there available to all. All my papers are publicly available via my university and most are on arxiv as well. I was just stating the opinion that writing a good paper for it to never be read is not worth the effort.

−3

lolillini t1_j0qexfe wrote

And what makes you think that (i) every good paper would be published in a conference/journal, and (ii) every paper that is published in a good conference/journal is good. My experience says both of these are wrong.

2

Celmeno t1_j0qh32a wrote

The vast majority of good papers (95+%) will be properly published after a while. This has been thee reality for decades.

Not every paper there will be good. There are mediocre conferences with amazing papers. There are top conferences with questionable papers. Regardless, the tendency is still clear.

I will gladly give OP feedback. But to state that publishing is not the primary way to get research out is just disingenuous

−4

7366241494 t1_j0qz7eu wrote

“The” scientific process? I was not aware that philosophers of science had strong agreement on such a singular process. I could be wrong. Please enlighten me: what IS the scientific process?

IMO the fact that there are very few replication studies published, if any, due to “lack of originality” is in itself quite damning of whatever you want to call the modern publishing/gatekeeping process.

Do you think Einstein would get published in today’s environment? IMO no.

1