The real problem is that 99% of research publications are, to put it bluntly, worthless. This is the root problem of the entire system which leads to many of the problems the author here is listing.
These 99% are often churned out because they help sustain someone's carrier or lab. To be published, crap research thus needs to convince people that it is smart and important. This is usually done by being written poorly.
The remaining 1% will progress human knowledge and help other scientists to continue down the right path. If they are important enough for wider dissemination, well, that's what science journalists are for.
These 99% are often churned out because they help sustain someone's carrier or lab. To be published, crap research thus needs to convince people that it is smart and important. This is usually done by being written poorly.
The remaining 1% will progress human knowledge and help other scientists to continue down the right path. If they are important enough for wider dissemination, well, that's what science journalists are for.