Every journal I’ve submitted to has passed my paper through at least one round of review with three or four reviewers. It’s more common than not to need several rounds of review before getting published. I’ve rejected papers for publishing myself.
Not to say bad stuff can’t get through, but a lot of crap science is filtered out of the serious journals by the review process.
I know there are some vetted lists you can search to check if a journal is trustworthy or not, but don’t remember what the site was.
Oh, absolutely. There is still quality science being done. But the increase in volume is aided by trash journals since the bar is so low to publish in them.
I’ll definitely agree that we have a problem with boatloads of crap science being published every day. Also, I’m under no illusion that the articles I’ve rejected were never published. They were likely just published in some predatory journal with no peer review instead. I’ve actually hear of people coming across articles they’ve rejected published verbatim in some obscure journal they’d never heard of before.
Luckily, most people working in a field know what journals are trustworthy, and are themselves capable of recognising bullshit when they come across it. Unluckily, very few journalists and laypeople have the same insight.
I’ve fantasised about a model where governments go together to finance a series of open-access journals. This could finally end the chokehold that modern reputable journals have on academia, and serve to provide broader access to quality science to journalists and the population at large.
Some countries are already moving in this direction with SciELO in Latin America and Plan S in Europe forcing open-acess publishing for publicly funded reserch, but the academic incentive structure still rewards publishing in high-impact paywalled journals.
Every journal I’ve submitted to has passed my paper through at least one round of review with three or four reviewers. It’s more common than not to need several rounds of review before getting published. I’ve rejected papers for publishing myself.
Not to say bad stuff can’t get through, but a lot of crap science is filtered out of the serious journals by the review process.
I know there are some vetted lists you can search to check if a journal is trustworthy or not, but don’t remember what the site was.
Journals I’ve published in (for reference):
Oh, absolutely. There is still quality science being done. But the increase in volume is aided by trash journals since the bar is so low to publish in them.
I’ll definitely agree that we have a problem with boatloads of crap science being published every day. Also, I’m under no illusion that the articles I’ve rejected were never published. They were likely just published in some predatory journal with no peer review instead. I’ve actually hear of people coming across articles they’ve rejected published verbatim in some obscure journal they’d never heard of before.
Luckily, most people working in a field know what journals are trustworthy, and are themselves capable of recognising bullshit when they come across it. Unluckily, very few journalists and laypeople have the same insight.
I’ve fantasised about a model where governments go together to finance a series of open-access journals. This could finally end the chokehold that modern reputable journals have on academia, and serve to provide broader access to quality science to journalists and the population at large.
Some countries are already moving in this direction with SciELO in Latin America and Plan S in Europe forcing open-acess publishing for publicly funded reserch, but the academic incentive structure still rewards publishing in high-impact paywalled journals.