> This is the state of scientific publishing in the 2020s, and we have to realize it. What we don't have to do is accept it.
What else can be done? This isn't a meritocracy, it's just capitalism. Is the alternative going to make more money? Then it will probably win. Is it going to make less money? Then it will almost certainly lose.
I think the simplest way to push more honesty into the system is to better inform consumers - Right now, a byline is a byline, and a citation is a citation, and those sell. People are vaguely aware that there are lower- and higher-quality papers, but for the most part, these bribes are considered someone else's problem and careers still use these simple metrics regardless of quality. We have to reduce the incentives to game the metrics, increase investigation for misconduct, and increase the penalty when that misconduct is found.
But how are we going to cause people to do those things? How does that pay?
>What else can be done? This isn't a meritocracy, it's just capitalism.
What an absurd take. Just because it involves money doesn't mean it's "capitalism"s fault, for starters because this has way more to do with regulatory capture than anything else.
The number one reason for all these fraudulent research is that it has become mandatory for phds, and that education in the west is subsidized to a point that you need a phd to qualify for jobs that would have only required a bachelor's 50 years ago. There's a law of diminishing returns to science, so vastly increasing the amount of people researching is going to disappoint lots of them. It's only reasonable that a number of them will take the easy way out and cheat.
What else can be done? This isn't a meritocracy, it's just capitalism. Is the alternative going to make more money? Then it will probably win. Is it going to make less money? Then it will almost certainly lose.
I think the simplest way to push more honesty into the system is to better inform consumers - Right now, a byline is a byline, and a citation is a citation, and those sell. People are vaguely aware that there are lower- and higher-quality papers, but for the most part, these bribes are considered someone else's problem and careers still use these simple metrics regardless of quality. We have to reduce the incentives to game the metrics, increase investigation for misconduct, and increase the penalty when that misconduct is found.
But how are we going to cause people to do those things? How does that pay?