There’s a scientific journal called “Get me off Your Fucking Mailing List”.
In 2005, computer scientists David Mazières and Eddie Kohler created this highly profane ten-page paper as a joke, to send in replying to unwanted conference invitations. It literally just contains that seven-word phrase over and over, along with a nice flow chart and scatter-plot graph.
An Australian computer scientist named Peter Vamplew sent it to the International Journal of Advanced Computer Technology in response to spam from the journal. Apparently, he thought the editors might simply open and read it.
Instead, they automatically accepted the paper — with an anonymous reviewer rating it as “excellent” — and requested a fee of $150. While this incident is pretty hilarious, it’s a sign of a bigger problem in science publishing. This journal is one of many online-only, for-profit operations that take advantage of inexperienced researchers under pressure to publish their work in any outlet that seems superficially legitimate.
Alien research team getting absolutely smoked during peer review for only examining isolated humans they found in remote locations, alleging that the statistical bias makes the data unusable
hi, french speaker here. not super versed on hugo but i have found the 1972 version and the page numbers cited and it does seem to check out. page 521 specifically says "We are accustomed, here in 'Choses vues', to the secret vocabulary and writing of Victor Hugo. Certain phrases are still enigmatic, other have "keys", often simple. Thus, when Victor Hugo, talking about a conquest, writes "Switzerland", which is the country of milk, he means breasts. Sometimes he wrote, to describe the same thing, the saints or the torso." (my translation) it continues on with explaining more coded phrases. the other cited page (371) is a section of hugos diary where he refers to "very loud/strong knocking at my bedside". make of that what you will
thank you so much for the translation!! I'm going to append it to the post. I appreciate you!
Entire board resigns over actions of academic publisher whose profit margins outstrip even Google and Amazon
More than 40 leading scientists have resigned en masse from the editorial board of a top science journal in protest at what they describe as the “greed” of publishing giant Elsevier.
The entire academic board of the journal Neuroimage, including professors from Oxford University, King’s College London and Cardiff University resigned after Elsevier refused to reduce publication charges.
Academics around the world have applauded what many hope is the start of a rebellion against the huge profit margins in academic publishing, which outstrip those made by Apple, Google and Amazon.
Neuroimage, the leading publication globally for brain-imaging research, is one of many journals that are now “open access” rather than sitting behind a subscription paywall. But its charges to authors reflect its prestige, and academics now pay over £2,700 for a research paper to be published. The former editors say this is “unethical” and bears no relation to the costs involved.
Professor Chris Chambers, head of brain stimulation at Cardiff University and one of the resigning team, said: “Elsevier preys on the academic community, claiming huge profits while adding little value to science.”
He has urged fellow scientists to turn their backs on the Elsevier journal and submit papers to a nonprofit open-access journal which the team is setting up instead.
He told the Observer: “All Elsevier cares about is money and this will cost them a lot of money. They just got too greedy. The academic community can withdraw our consent to be exploited at any time. That time is now.”
Elsevier, a Dutch company that claims to publish 25% of the world’s scientific papers, reported a 10% increase in its revenue to £2.9bn last year. But it’s the profit margins, nearing 40%, according to its 2019 accounts, which anger academics most. The big scientific publishers keep costs low because academics write up their research – typically funded by charities and the public purse – for free. They “peer review” each other’s work to verify it is worth publishing for free, and academic editors collate it for free or for a small stipend. Academics are then often charged thousands of pounds to have their work published in open-access journals, or universities will pay very high subscription charges.
some of yall really need to consider that academia is not infallible and highly educated people can still be wrong because they are people that come with biases and brains that sometimes do not make the most logical conclusions when it comes to things. They can also be paid to say stuff and call it credible when it isn't. You *have* to learn how to look at biases and examine sources critically without always jumping to "oh this is peer reviewed so it's definitely true!" because people can and do lie. Check. The. Journal. Look up the author(s). Learn to think critically about how studies are conducted and how they might be skewed. I'm begging you
