After decades of dealing with Elsevier, Springer-Verlag and the rest; I hope they all go out of business.
Sayre's Law: Academic Politics Are So Vicious Because the Stakes Are So Small<p>Maybe universities, tenure committees, and funding sources should stop measuring academics by vanity metrics such as H-Index and publication counts. And don't get me started on the tendency toward "minimum publishable units."<p>That said, abusing power as an editor deserves a special place in hell...
The funny thing is, if the guy wasn't quite so greedy with this racket, probably no one would notice. Surely if the number of your publications and citations shoots up exponentially and surpasses those of much more well-known scientists, folks are bound to ask questions. I wonder if this got out of control or whether he really did think it's a good idea to collude his way to such prominence.
It'd be nice to check whether some llms still have "memory" of the paper she has deleted
Makes sense. Economics isn’t science, it’s numerology that justifies exploiting workers.
It will be interesting to see how Goodell's citations drop going forward.
3 down, thousands to go.<p>This will continue until Elsevier and their 3 or 4 peers are removed from the academic publishing process entirely.
Is it just me or this makes me feel less guilty for using libgen all these years
Information for non-commercial purposes should be free for general social enrichment. Information for commercial purposes should have some path towards monetization but the one we've got right now is clearly a terrible fit.<p>For the future, though, usually if you just email one of the paper author's with even a hint of interest you'll get the full paper and often a neat discussion about how your specific interest relates to the paper. I think people assume researchers get hounded by fans like celebrities but they're usually folks that love to talk about their topics of interest.
I don't know anyone who should be feeling guilty from using libgen in the first place.
[flagged]
I'm torn about your comment. On the one hand, the context is interesting. On the other hand, it's almost unrelated to the substance of <i>this</i> post of his. I suppose there's a general anti-mainstream-science bias propagating through national-conservative/far-right/alt-right circles, specifically about how the world of academia functions. However, the facts of <i>this</i> post about how a corner of academia functions ought to stand up or fall down independently of all that. 95-100% of this is facts (falsifiable, and maybe wrong, but stated as such), and a tiny percentage is opinion.
Oh yeah, it's a fine post! Interesting read. But I don't think it's that silly to say that success for a person who espouses these views is success for the views themselves, and that a tone-shift might arise if gradually, more and more posts about inoffensive topics written by "Mr. Don't Worry About It ;)" make their way onto the front page.
[flagged]
I am not arguing against the facts expressed in the piece. This is not an area in which I have any expertise.<p>However, I am a bit uncomfortable with the pithy language used. It's possible (likely, even), that the fired editors deserve the pithiness, but it's still a bit weird to read that kind of prose, in a scientific context.
This is an investigative substack, not a piece of academic literature. God forbid the author home some (admittedly, strong) opinions and speaks negatively about fraudsters.
I thought the caption "looking normal" was possibly a bit unnecessary.<p>Then again, I also found it rather funny. I suspect this is because I am a bad person.
I am amazed that every time evil is exposed there are people who have to jump in and wonder "Are we being a bit too mean to the evil though?"<p>Makes me wonder if these people are just evil themselves.
There are few things I’m afraid of more than a man that thinks himself righteous, because there is very little that such a man would be unwilling to do.<p>So it makes sense to be cautious when I find myself feeling like one, or being pulled along by the emotions of another who does.
You're not wrong about the danger posed, but take a step back and consider who this attitude helps. The greatest beneficiaries of a culture in which good faith and civility are <i>unconditionally</i> granted for fear of misguided righteous anger is a paradise for fraudsters and bad faith actors. I think we're seeing that world now.
It comes from having the sort of parents whose behavior warrants this kind of suspicions.
I've decided that it's a weird reversed counterpart to "impostor syndrome" (when you secretly think you're not that good while trying your best to maintain a professional standard.)<p>I think there's this sort of "moral impostor syndrome" where people who carefully work to present an image of themselves as good people are totally willing to participate in fraud or theft at any level - the <i>only</i> consideration is whether they will be caught, because they value the appearance of being good people (and of course, that appearance gives them more opportunities to commit fraud and theft safely.) If they want to do something and there's no way they'll be caught, they'll do it 100% of the time.<p>This is the only way I can understand people who refer to fraud as a "mistake." They see other people caught in a fraud that they can imagine that they themselves might have done, because they also wouldn't have thought that they would have ever been caught. The "mistake" was evaluating the chances of the success of a fraud badly.<p>The fact that they relate to these people also makes them want to give them a second chance, just as they would want to be able to recover their careers if any of their past (or future) frauds had become "mistakes."<p>"There but for the grace of God go I."<p>It's terrible. It incentivizes evil. The desperation to give people a second chance to expiate one's own secret sins by proxy creates a system where people <i>only initially draw attention</i> through frauds, then get caught, then get second chances. Meanwhile, people who didn't participate in fraud never get noticed. It's a perverse incentive that filters for trash. Do anything to get your name out there, then the fact that your name is out there gets you into the conversation.<p>Meanwhile, somebody is scolding you for being upset about it: "You're just perfect I guess. Never made a mistake." Fraud is not a mistake. You do it on purpose.
Yup. You got me. Pleased to meet you. Hope you guess my name.
ChatGPT?
Unlikely, but wouldn't surprise me if ChatGPT sounds a bit like ChrisMarshallNY given the amount of comments they've made here over the years :)
Seriously? Try looking at the profile.
Maybe I'm just naive or dense, but I'm not seeing language I'd be concerned about in the article? Help me get calibrated, is there something in particular that bothers you? or just a general vibe?
Well...the reactions were ... <i>enlightening</i><p>I certainly apologize for hurting feelings. That was not my intent.<p>I've just learned (the hard way, of course, because how else do we learn?), that using this kind of terminology, even though we may be feeling quite pithy, gives ammo to those that wish to discount us.<p>This goes double, in my experience, for any context that prizes objectivity and articulate discussion.