You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Can we trust peer-reviewed papers?
Today, open access is very very important IMO. It is actually one of the most important point.
All my articles are now published only in open access journals and are available for free from the arxiv (that is spread towards more and more fields). One very interesting platform that I have not yet taken the time to publish with is SciPost. I don't know if you have ever heard about it.
And to answer @lukestokes question, the answer is probably field-dependent and journal-dependent.
PS: I don't have the time to watch the video now as I am at work, but I will do it later.
It's a good video, and yes, "it depends" is usually a safe answer.
Scipost is really cool, although I don't read up on as much physics as I used to.
One thing to remember about things like arxiv is they can be published there with out any peer review. Which means material put there can, be crap. It doesn't mean that it is, but peer review is still, at this point, essential for the reinforcement of research quality.
Open access publishing is essential IMO for the quick effective dissemination of scientific knowledge to all edges of the earth. However these journals must be held to the very highest level of editorial scrutiny and a robust peer review process is essential for this. Should the peer review responses also be made available for all to see upon publication of a paper? I believe it should.
There is actually one protection on the arxiv as you must be endorsed to be able to post. This does not prevent from crap, but it at least imposes new users to have one reasonable article to start with.
Me too. Which is what I like with SciPost (which I should try one day :p ).