Obviously something is severely wrong regarding the whole publication process. Clearly a central issue is that the quality of these papers is non judgemental inasmuch as the bar is low enough to allow most to get published. You learn how to prepare the work and that is it.
No one tells you if the paper is worth reading at all. And that is a problem. Exactly who cares about the apparent geology of a given square mile of rock unless you are the owner? Yet data does need to be recorded as well and it should be reviewed carefully. Yet it is not a thesis of new knowledge from a theoretical perspective.
The truth is that good lab data needs to be reviewed carefully and published with as little hypothesizing as possible. That should be the real standard for most science. Instead far to much of all that data is simply set aside and lost.
Real theoretical work needs to be identified as such and opened to comment as well. It is not enough to have two reviewers read the material. This should also be rare...
Academics Write Rubbish Nobody Reads
Thursday, October 27, 2016
- “Dona Benta’s Rosary: Managing Ambiguity in a Brazilian Women’s Prayer Group”
- “Death and Demonization of a Bodhisattva: Guanyin’s Reformulation within Chinese Religion”
- “Brides and Blemishes: Queering Women’s Disability in Rabbinic Marriage Law”