Scientific publishing has been described as a
disaster:
Publishers have become cartels, with a chokehold on our ability to
share our findings and on the metrics responsible for professional
ascendence. Hiring and promotion are incorrigibly tainted by network
effects, which accentuate biases towards certain institutions, mentor
pedigrees, and extended professional circles.
Idea mafias
dominate fields for reasons having nothing to do with the quality of
the science. Scientists who lean into the stories of great luminaries by
applying their skill set to new problems incur a measurable
professional
penalty. And demographic disparities (in
ethnicity or
gender, for example) dictate who gets funded,
cited, and, by extension, elevated into the leadership of many fields.