- 22,170
- 3,333
Very funny and insightful video:
The discussion revolves around a video by John Oliver that humorously critiques the portrayal of science in the media, the publication practices in scientific journals, and the pressures faced by researchers. Participants share their thoughts on the effectiveness of Oliver's presentation style and the implications of his criticisms on the scientific community.
Participants express a mix of agreement on the value of Oliver's critiques while also presenting differing views on the implications of peer review and publication practices. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the overall impact of these issues on the scientific community.
Participants mention specific cases of publication practices and peer review outcomes, indicating a need for further exploration of the assumptions underlying these claims. The discussion does not resolve the complexities involved in the relationship between media portrayal and scientific integrity.
Astronuc said:I know of some cases were reviewers rejected papers that were subsequently published, and so, sometimes, garbage gets published.
Two reviewers rejected the paper, and there was some problems with the work, not to mention that the paper failed to address something that in the paper was claimed would be addressed. One of the authors was a former student of the editor of the prestigious international journal. But I digress.micromass said:Just because a reviewer rejects a paper, that doesn't mean it shouldn't get published. It's a big red flag though.