As more and more dense criticism of the status quo accumulates, I wonder what it will take to actually change something.
A new paper spells it out:
Ioannidis, J., Tatsioni, A., & Karassa, F. B. (2010). Who is afraid of reviewers’ comments? Or, why anything can be published and anything can be cited. European journal of clinical investigation, 40(4), 285-287.
Can be accessed here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2362.2010.02272.x/full
Just one quote: “Why would scientists publish junk? Apparently, the current system does not penalize its publication. Conversely, it rewards productivity. In 1986, Drummond Rennie noted that nothing can deter a paper from ending in print. Since then, more papers are published each year and more authors flock to the masthead of the average manuscript. Nowadays, some authors have been co-authoring more than 100 papers annually. Some of these researchers actually published only 3 or 4 papers per year until their mid-forties and fifties. Then suddenly, they developed this agonizing writing incontinence. Such unbelievable productivity makes Erdos, the most famous prolific author of the past, seem lazy by comparison.”
What are we all waiting for?