Celmeno t1_j0qaw0s wrote on December 18, 2022 at 5:02 PM

Reply to comment by 7366241494 in [R] Getting arXiv article published. Endorsement needed, cs. by No-Stay9943

You seem to have no idea about the scientific process. But that's okay. Not everyone has to know everything. I did not argue against putting it out there available to all. All my papers are publicly available via my university and most are on arxiv as well. I was just stating the opinion that writing a good paper for it to never be read is not worth the effort.

lolillini t1_j0qexfe wrote on December 18, 2022 at 5:28 PM

And what makes you think that (i) every good paper would be published in a conference/journal, and (ii) every paper that is published in a good conference/journal is good. My experience says both of these are wrong.

Celmeno t1_j0qh32a wrote on December 18, 2022 at 5:43 PM

The vast majority of good papers (95+%) will be properly published after a while. This has been thee reality for decades.

Not every paper there will be good. There are mediocre conferences with amazing papers. There are top conferences with questionable papers. Regardless, the tendency is still clear.

I will gladly give OP feedback. But to state that publishing is not the primary way to get research out is just disingenuous

7366241494 t1_j0qz7eu wrote on December 18, 2022 at 7:31 PM

“The” scientific process? I was not aware that philosophers of science had strong agreement on such a singular process. I could be wrong. Please enlighten me: what IS the scientific process?

IMO the fact that there are very few replication studies published, if any, due to “lack of originality” is in itself quite damning of whatever you want to call the modern publishing/gatekeeping process.

Do you think Einstein would get published in today’s environment? IMO no.