[–] Lilija 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
I guess it depends on the level of credibility. If some source is known to bring solid scientific information it requires moderation in order to keep its credibility. But at the same time some places for discussion are needed as well. Also, even if certain subverse isn't moderated doesn't mean the community won't self moderate to some extend. I assume that if a science subverse takes itself more or less seriously, people will just downvote stupid/pointless posts.
[–] [deleted] 0 points 5 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago
[–] alalzia 0 points 6 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago (edited ago)
Good question
There is soft science and hard science , soft science topics (economics, politics etc) should be left free because they fall into the realm of philosophy, can generate a good amount of debate and there is no valid way to prove that they are wrong . Hard science topics are of two kinds : those that are open to interpretation (archaeology, quantum mechanics, climatology) and those who are not (mathematics, physics, biology, robotics) i believe moderation should be very lax on the first group and heavy on the second .
Science is our attempt to understand and we should keep an open mind but still filter out bullshit that have already proven wrong .
[–] phw 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Censorship: You can't publish that.
Standards: We won't publish that.
Far as I'm aware, no academic journal tries to block authors of rejected papers from publishing them elsewhere.