5 Comments
Nov 1, 2020Liked by JFMcDonald

I don't know your area of expertise, but many of the criticisms you have cited for traditional publication outlets are either not universally true, or don't apply in the broad sense that you imply. For instance, the various arXivs have existed as scientific publication venues for several years now, and have the advantages of being free, open, and accessible to their target audiences. With respect to the issue of peer review, it is not clear how having drive-by reviewers will solve the problems wherein the reviewers need to assess any new work for quality, novelty, and relevance. If it is considered that the demands for novelty and relevance are onerous, there currently exist scientific publications, such as PLoS One, which will only evaluate submitted work on the basis of quality, thus removing any potential bias that reviewers may have towards the novelty and relevance of any research.

You argued, at the beginning of your article, that your own work has gone unpublished "since the media available to us researchers are obsolete, overly exclusive or subject to market demands incompatible with real science." As it is clear that these arguments are not universally true, it does beg the question of what you consider to be "real science", and how this differs from the presumably fake science that is currently published in existing outlets.

Expand full comment

Indeed, and it has the advantage to communicate with the general public.

Expand full comment

What's your take on the absence of a landing/about page, or the popup to subscribe that I think cannot be disabled? I'm thinking about where to move my academic website (currently hosted via Github pages) to something more contemporary in 2024. Substack has the advantage that I can post from my laptop, ipad, iphone and just keep going. But I worry about not having a modern landing page since—I think but don't know—most people who go to my homepage just want to know who I am and where I work.

Expand full comment