4
87

[–] tazmanian 4 points 87 points (+91|-4) ago 

Title is misleading. What the article says is:

Combined, the top five most prolific publishers account for more than 50% of all papers published in 2013. Disciplines of the social sciences have the highest level of concentration (70% of papers from the top five publishers), while the humanities have remained relatively independent (20% from top five publishers).  NMS disciplines are in between, mainly because of the strength of their scientific societies, such as the ACS in chemistry or APS in physics.

So, although the number is high, it is nowhere near "all scientific papers".

1
31

[–] AberdolfLincler 1 points 31 points (+32|-1) ago  (edited ago)

This is pretty telling though, "Disciplines of the social sciences have the highest level of concentration (70% of papers from the top five publishers)". It seems like that topic is the one they'd want to mislead the public about the most. I agree that "nearly all" is a bit too strong though.

[–] [deleted] 5 points 25 points (+30|-5) ago 

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] KingWallop 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

More than Half of ALL

0
0

[–] BleakBaron 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

This is what I love about sites like this, fact checking and pulling out the truth. Thank you!

0
0

[–] javierNelson 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Yeah, but OP's infographic looks much nicer than yours

1
30

[–] ownsauce 1 points 30 points (+31|-1) ago 

The entire system is holding back societal and scientific progress.

1
12

[–] NotALawyer 1 points 12 points (+13|-1) ago  (edited ago)

System is not made to help progress, but to control society. To keep everyone busy studying in their most productive years of life. Studying so much stuff none of them is ever going to use, spend hundreds of thousand hours and dollars on a piece of fancy paper on a wall, and a few faint memories. Then spend the same sum of money they don't have to buy a house they don't need, and slave their lives to make money for somebody else.

0
4

[–] tame 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

Natural selection takes place at the level of nations as well as individuals. Nations where the system is designed to waste peoples' time will eventually fall into decay, making way for nations which optimise their peoples' effectiveness.

0
3

[–] Al_Rubyx 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Jeez, alright Tyler durden.

0
2

[–] DashingLeech 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

To be polite, this is incorrect. Since I'm not all that polite when it comes to this sort of thing, it's also conspiracy theory bullshit.

It's the same mistake that the religious make with respect to the "argument from design" when attacking evolution. Starting at the end product and seeing the dynamics of the system, you have applied an assumption of intentional design. That is neither necessary nor true.

Any system of transactions, with simple transactional rules will have emegent propeties of the system. The system is, indeed, designed for progress. How well it does that is up for debate, and ways people do transactional exploits or subvert the system are up for debate, but regardless the overall system performance is not the product of a master plan. More importantly, scientists aren't mindless cogs; if the system were subveting actual scientific progress, they would subvert the system. I say this with more than 40 publications of my own.

0
0

[–] raspberryvine 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

It's called modern slavery.

0
7

[–] AberdolfLincler 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

Agreed. This isn't much of a shock to me, seeing as it's been reported multiple times over the years that the Harper Government has been muzzling its scientists. Yay Canada.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/muzzling-of-federal-scientists-widespread-survey-suggests-1.2128859 http://democracywatch.ca/campaigns/tell-harper-to-stop-muzzling-scientists/

0
1

[–] Calibas 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

I had a scientist explain to me that while corporate control corrupts science, it's a good thing because scientists get more money. I can't help but think he may have been a little biased.

0
0

[–] EndDrugAndOtherWars 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago  (edited ago)

thezeigeistmovement.com? Or anarco-capitaism.

0
0

[–] jurimasa 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Please, don't. I was into Zeitgeist for more than 2 years. In the end, I saw Zeitgeist as just an extreme form of fascism with more CGI, and Peter Joseph is just another cunt with messianic delusions who exploited the vision of Jacqe Fresco because he lacks a vision of his own. I kind of like anarchism, but the problem I see is that anarcho-capitalism is basically just feudalism. The strong will exploit the weak without remorse or consequences in an anarcho-capitalist society.

0
25

[–] Flaaffy 0 points 25 points (+25|-0) ago 

Similarly, almost every single TV channel is owned by a handful of corporations as well.

I'm starting to feel like everthing I've learned is one giant fabricated lie.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
2

[–] S2Foxhunt 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Pick up that can, citizen!

[–] [deleted] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] MeadHall 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I feel like i just left someplace like that.

0
1

[–] NotALawyer 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Everything is as it should be. You have access to all the information in the world. Bet you don't even know where to start. Have some desperate housewives, sex in the city, how i met your mother, simpsons. That should sate you, citizen. But remember to always seek more information.

0
1

[–] mamwad 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Hey, don't you bundle the Simpsons in with all that poop. In its heyday, the Simpsons was great social satire. A learned a lot just from the references they made in the early seasons. Lisa Simpson introduced me to Allen Ginsberg!

2
14

[–] HyruleIRule 2 points 14 points (+16|-2) ago 

It begs the question, who controlled this study? Really interesting find!

[–] [deleted] 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] heili 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

It means the conclusion is stated in the premise.

Of course everyone watches reality television, it's the most popular style of entertainment.

0
4

[–] Dumbledead 0 points 4 points (+4|-0) ago 

That's not what "controlled" means in this instance.

0
2

[–] HyruleIRule 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Oh, I may have miss understood. I meant, who is responsible for this study? it's published on plos.org, but do they have any controlling parties? Do they restrict what is published to appeal to advertisers or donors, etc? the author is Vincent Larivière, but who funded the study? And so on.

I haven't read the study yet so maybe that's not what it's getting at.

1
9

[–] EndDrugAndOtherWars 1 points 9 points (+10|-1) ago  (edited ago)

But...but the SCIENCE IS SET!!!!!!!

Seriously, academia has no credibility with me anymore. People shit on the sources I cite and instead cite this garbage. Establishment Science/Academia have an agenda. That agenda has noting to do with truth.

0
3

[–] BobDaBuilder 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

Too bad the name "scientology" is already taken considering that they have made a theology out of science.

0
0

[–] Crux 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Scientism then?

2
-2

[–] EndDrugAndOtherWars 2 points -2 points (+0|-2) ago 

Like telling us hunter-gathers were in monogamous single-family units? Get real, science bros. We travelled in groups, trudging over ice fighting off mammoths and saber tooths. We had to pop out as many kids as possible as a survival strategy. We needed the entire tribe to be together for protection. Everyone was fucking everyone and raising the children communally. This is how humans lived for 90% of our existence. This is essentially who we still are in the modern world, but this mindset hard-wired into our evolutionary biology. The Church/Science knows this. It's why they promote establishment religions that have extremely strict views regarding sex, like stoning people to death for adultery. They think this is best for us, that it is the best way for society to function. So they brainwash us. They'd rather us not know the truth, they'd like us to "know" what they tell us.

0
2

[–] mamwad 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

The problem with this is not so much that the findings of academic papers are fraudulent, but that they aren't easily accessible by the public. These companies are holding the intellectual resources of an entire society for ransom. That is why Aaron Swartz did what he did.

1
7

[–] OriginalReaper 1 points 7 points (+8|-1) ago 

I don't know what to believe anymore

0
5

[–] SubjectiveObserver 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Find your own truth. Don't wait for it to be given to you, it won't be.

0
0

[–] lookingforcats 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Too true!

0
2

[–] EndDrugAndOtherWars 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

James Corbett, the Corbett Report (you won't like what you hear, I assure you).

0
1

[–] Cartmenez 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

James Corbett is the man!

0
0

[–] 1277888? 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

That's what they want...

0
6

[–] Naught405 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

choose any sector, find the 6 corporations that control it. Not even joking, our entire global economy controlled by these massive conglomerates

0
5

[–] Jarles 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

I think there is a portion of this that is misleading. You're talking about where the articles are ultimately published. Not who paid for the research in the first place.

When I was doing undergraduate research (chemistry and biochemistry), there was a very strong emphasis on repeatability and peer review. If I wanted to publish something I had to make sure that I had cited my sources for methods, or described a novel method itself, and show with my data that is was repeatable. The article was then sent off to whichever publishers I felt it was appropriate to publish in, and waited for the peer review response. A particular paper I helped with was sent back with corrections suggested, or an outright "We don't feel that this is the correct journal to publish these results." And they were right. We were trying to publish the research in a larger journal to get more "acclaim" or to get it more easily accessible. The paper was later accepted by a journal that was more in line with the topic of the research (copper salt formations under different temperatures and concentrations of NaOH if you're interested). But the research was done independently from who published it. And almost all researchers want their research to be as visible as possible.

Ignoring the debate about pay for publish vs pay for the actual journal or paper. It seems a natural trend for researchers in the Natural and Medical Sciences to gravitate towards the biggest names in their research fields.

My only critique of the article iself is that This graphic from the article shows the percentage of papers, but doesn't give us any raw numbers to show if there's a decrease in the number of papers being published in smaller journals, or just a larger increase in the bigger papers. I would like to see that trend as well, and given time, I'm sure I could find articles that list such information. But I unfortunately do not have that time at the moment.

Just my 2 bits.

load more comments ▼ (17 remaining)