this post was submitted on 29 May 2024
1399 points (95.5% liked)

Science Memes

11081 readers
2959 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] oce@jlai.lu 18 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

Does it require independent peer review though? How do you achieve that ~~with~~ without publication? The predatory publication system is a different point.

Edit: fix without

[–] Mojave@lemmy.world 20 points 5 months ago (7 children)

Wouldn't this imply that science didn't exist before academic publication existed? Was zero science conducted before the ~1600s then?

[–] Zo0@feddit.de 8 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (2 children)

Well you're not entirely incorrect with that assumption. What we call science today is actually the Scientific Method Which is a much more skeptical approach to science than the earlier methods, hence the credibility. I like many others agree that the fees built into the system is quiet absurd and the process is not perfect, but currently that is the only legit way to get others evaluate your research.

[–] thanks_shakey_snake@lemmy.ca 4 points 5 months ago

The word "legit" there is doing alot of work.

[–] Mojave@lemmy.world 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

I ask with genuine curiosity, as I am not an academic and come from a software development mindset

Why is paid-for services the only "legit" way to get others to evaluate your research? Why is it not kosher to publicly publish your research, and simply invite peers to evaluate it? This idea is essentially the entire process behind Open Source Software, and is the backbone of most modern tools/programs/apps/software/linux development.

What does paying a publishing company provide you, as a researcher, that makes it worth it?

[–] Zo0@feddit.de 2 points 5 months ago

I don't know what to tell you man, sometimes even I wonder if it's worth it at all. Publishing to a journal is such a difficult task. Before submitting your paper you need the approval of two other well-established individuals. Then you send in your paper to your selected journal and each one has some specific format and policies, which many are arbitrary and inthe end of the day depends on the person reviewing your paper. This can take weeks of back and forth.

However if you think you did something noteworthy, as far as I know, this is how you get it in front of the eyes of your peers. Even then there's a chance that your paper gets ignored lol.

So like many others in this thread, I'm not a fan of this process because even though it's strict, a lot of bs still passes through

[–] oce@jlai.lu 6 points 5 months ago

Fair point, I should specify "modern science". There's quite a gap of scientific quality between traditional medicine and modern science based medicine for example.

[–] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 5 points 5 months ago

No, peer reviewing can happen in many ways. But it needs to be public.

Sending letters also allows for peer reviewing.

[–] Objection@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Was zero science conducted before the ~1600s then?

I mean, yes. The framework of studying things that we understand as science did not always exist.

[–] Zehzin@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago

Every time someone thinks science and studying natural phenomena are the same thing Newton sheds a single tear from his non-poked eye.

[–] SmoothOperator@lemmy.world 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Possibly. I can't come up with any major results that wasn't either logic, engineering or tradition. But it's an interesting question. What might count as science before then?

[–] yeahiknow3@lemmings.world 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

Before the 20th century most famous physicists referred to themselves as “natural philosophers,” not scientists. The P in PhD is for philosophy. The word “science” refers to a modern social phenomenon, a sort of peer-review methodology that generates shared public knowledge.

[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 1 points 5 months ago

not as a discipline. If you publish an experiment to the extent it can be reproduced, it is science, so its happened before but in a less intentional fashion