|
|
|
|
|
|
by borntyping
1384 days ago
|
|
|
> This is not doing science. It is “publishing articles written by scientists that you happen to find emotionally appealing”. Have scientific journals ever _not_ worked this way? They're generally curated by an editor who curates the articles the journal peer-reviews and publishes. |
|
|
It has never supposed to have worked this way and we have supposedly made progress in making the process as Scientific as possible. The bias that exists has never really been expressed this blatantly before (at least in modern history).
What is essentially said here is that irrespective of how good the Science is, it will not be published if it upsets people. There are many, many, excellent and necessary Scientific studies that may be blocked by this.
I have actively watched studies about an ethnic group being blocked because the ethnic group would react badly (in this case it was insanely high domestic violence and factors that may cause it). Some truths may hurt at the time, but ultimately we become better by publishing them.
> They're generally curated by an editor who curates the articles the journal peer-reviews and publishes.
The editor is arguably the worst part of the process. Some of this can be negated with double-blind peer review for example, where the editor is limited in their ability to override the opinions of multiple reviewers.
One can only hope that with more online publishing we can move towards a better, decentralized journal system.