pull down to refresh
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @Scoresby OP 2h \ parent \ on: The growth of western bureaucracy charts_and_numbers
This seems like a case of you get what you incentivize: I can see that authors may benefit from qualifying statements, acknowledging edge case exceptions, including marginal sources, and generally adding a bit more to the paper, whereas I doubt there is as Mich pressure to be concise (journal word count limits?).
Also, nobody built a career just being quiet and reading what all the other people write. You have to add your voice to the cacophony.
I'm ready for academia to abandon the paper idea altogether; make a website publish your findings that way, keep them up to date. Peer review seems pretty broken any way, but surely we can build a system that achieves something similar sans publishers.