News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Japan's push to make all research open access by DiogenesKynikos on Friday May 31, 2024 @06:47AM (#40533404)
> Reviewers are pushed to accept papers instead of rejecting them, because a rejected paper makes no money

Prestigious journals have very low (single-digit percentage) acceptance rates.

One or two rungs down, the standard domain-specific journals are still rigorous, and you need to do substantial work to get published in them. It's a hurdle that any decent graduate student with a good advisor can pass, but it's not as if you can just write anything and get published.

There are junk journals that will publish anything, but I don't think scientists generally pay much attention to those journals.

> I sincerely pity the PhD student who needs to run a serious, systematic literature review in 2024. Hell sounds more attractive.

Doing a literature review is not that difficult. You begin with a few highly cited papers. Then you look at what papers they reference in the intro. You also look at the list of papers that cite them and sort by the number of citations. You can work in both directions and pretty quickly establish what the important papers in the field are.

Notice that the important thing here is to look at citations. Getting a paper into a journal is only the first, most basic step. Peer review is only an initial quality check. Over time, other scientists decide what papers are important and cite them. If a paper racks up 100 citations, that means a lot more than just passing peer review.

Re:Japan's push to make all research open access by rscho on Friday May 31, 2024 @09:11AM (#40534715)
You are not describing a systematic literature review. Systematic reviews are hell indeed, at least in non-STEM fields.
Re:Japan's push to make all research open access by low_tech_love on Friday May 31, 2024 @10:01AM (#40535294)
> There are junk journals that will publish anything, but I don't think scientists generally pay much attention to those journals.

Yes, but the point is not that the good journals are not there, it’s that the good ones are drowned out by the absolute humongous amount of garbage that comes out every day. If you do research you know that it’s not so simple like “oh I only read papers from journals X and Y”. Good research comes out everywhere, and if you don’t cite it people (I mean reviewers, if you can call them that) will complain, and anyway you’ll be putting yourself in a bubble which is bad practice. It used to be that journals would do the work for you to separate good from bad research, but nowadays it’s on the researcher to dig through 1000 papers to find a single good one. It’s ridiculous and meaningless. If we’re paying them and making them rich, at least I’d expect them to do their job.

Re:Japan's push to make all research open access by DiogenesKynikos on Saturday June 01, 2024 @03:06PM (#40548272)
I've never heard of people having trouble sorting out good from bad papers, but maybe you're in a field where that's the case.