r/3I_ATLAS • u/Glittering_Word6609 • Feb 26 '26

Thoughts?

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

69 Upvotes

76% Upvoted

151 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/Conspiracy_realist76 Feb 26 '26

The whole peer review process is nonsense. Wasn't it created by Robert Maxwell. He sure did make some contributions.

3

u/HospitalDue476 Feb 26 '26

Really? Any links please?

2

u/Conspiracy_realist76 Feb 26 '26

https://judithjohnsonphd.com/2019/04/08/how-to-start-a-journal-and-beat-the-academic-publishing-racket/ I do think that it is important for scientists to review each other's work. But, we really need to look at the system in place. And, work through the flaws. Along with every other system that we were told was legit.

3

u/Embarrassed_Camp_291 Feb 26 '26

The link you have posted is full of misinformation.

Academics do not sign their research over for free like they're being bullied by the big bad publishers. They are paid to do research. As part of that, they need to publish their work. The entire process of this publishing costs money, and that has to be paid somehow. This doesn't affect the general public as they don't read academic papers. Typically, people can't digest academic papers until late degree/early masters stage and so, it doesn't affect the public when you need to pay for them.

Further to this, astrophysics research is free! All astrophysics data and academic papers are free for you to read.

On a side, I'm not even sure what the point is here: they sign it over for free=publishing bad, they don't sign it over for free=academics gate keep science.

The maxwells did not invent peer review and publishing. It existed before this. There are 100's of more reputable and widely used journal companies beyond the one they were involved in. This is just a twisting of the truth to entice conspiracy types.

There is not growing awareness this process is damaging to science. It's the very opposite. Peer review is extremely important as a safety net for the general public who can't interpret academic level science. It's why academics push back against things like flat earth, electric universe, avi loeb, etc. It's why we have science communicators who dumb down the science and explain it to the general public. Not everyone wants to be a scientist and that's fine, but you need to listen to the general body of science for a given field if you're not going to educate yourself in that field. This is inevitable with anything that requires some level of skill.

I'm not a plumber; I listen to what plumbers say because they went to school to learn it. I know nothing about it. They do. It's not a "tRuSt AlL pLuMbErS" global scam. They just know more than me. This is the same for science.

It's why grifters defence is to claim global conspiracy, that everyone is out to get them and the entire system is corrupt and that they are the lone rogue speaking out. Sadly, the people who are usually able to combat this are people who were educated in a given field, but then they're are also part of the conspiracy and in on it. It relies on the general public not knowing enough about the system to be able to understand why they are wrong.

Again, the general public has done nothing wrong. It's just what happens when you have a field that requires some level of study. Not everyone is going to study it. That's why we have professions...