Post #3431926

@Quantensalat@scicomm.xyz @Bumblefish@mastodon.scot @darkuncle@infosec.exchange @gregeganSF@mathstodon.xyz WTF? Checking, since my slop exposure is low. To be clear (restating to make sure I'm actually grasping the text) - this is a *publisher* saying that the *publication* (the thing they produce, their contribution to the process) isn't as important as the "insight" (the thing the scientist produces, that requires refinement and friction to become useful). That somehow by focusing on *the thing they don't do* they will become more important to the process and more profitable? And also, papers are about the scientist's insight, but their insight that the scientist's insight is the important thing is what will ... generate magical profit? It's probably naïve to hope that a *publisher* would understand that their role in scientific progress includes (1) facilitating communication between scientists, (2) providing a process that enables scientists to establish mutual ptrust, and (3) introducing necessary friction to improve communication of novel ideas and reduce misunderstanding. And traditionally raking cash off the top of every transaction, because scientists *need* all three of those things. Discovering that their job is publishing other peoples' insights is a world-shaking insight that contradicts their long-standing belief? What did they think their job was? I'm beginning to think history is going to name this the era of Mass Delusion.