RT @micahgallen@twitter.com

Stop glorifying legacy journals and impact factor. Just stop. The quality of science is fully independent from where it is published. To act otherwise is intellectual dishonesty. If you are established you have a duty to convey this message to stakeholders, grant agencies, etc.

🐦🔗: twitter.com/micahgallen/status

for established scientists, the value of publishing in a prestige journal should be inverted. it's hard for me to be interested in your science when the way it's published signals you're not interested in the health of science.

and this, the prestige signal also tells a lot about the approach to science and the processes that shape it. twitter.com/brembs/status/1481

established researchers only, ECRs take lots of risks to fight for a better future for science, but ultimately have little control over the ocean they have to stay afloat in

Follow

it's tragic that much of the energy to reform science from replication crises has been reduced to window dressing tokens atop the existing publication regime when it is precisely that regime whose structure and incentives cause them in the first place.

it is impossible at the moment to just focus on doing "normal science" without material investment in rebuilding our modes of scientific communication. as publishers continue to gamify the practice of science with surveillance-based metrics, that will only become more true.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
social.coop

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!