top of page
Writer's pictureScott Glickman

Science publishing

In a world, with dissemination of knowledge so easy, I question how health scientists, broadly an intelligent, hard-working, critically-thinking lot, have managed to accept to pay substantial sums of money to disseminate the fruits of their generally-valuable work, intended to improve life by adding to the human pool of knowledge. Similarly bewildering is that academic institution leaders, employed to facilitate those aims, are prepared to pay heavily for the privilege of having their scientists published in journals that tout for business using ego-massage tactics, as I receive relentlessly from open-access journals that I’d never previously encountered, followed by “invitations” from them to submit articles at “discounted fees.” I wonder what scientists from William Harvey to Anton van Leeuwenhoek to Einstein would have thought of this as progress.


I now use Linkedin and special interest group forums to attempt to achieve those aims, despite its limitations. I prefer to allocate hard-earned, precious funds made available to me, to support scientific enquiry directly for dissemination to readers who don’t feel the need to outsource critical thinking to paid strangers and leave you to evaluate my statements for yourself. Thankfully, at least I’m no longer pressured by “publish or perish” and research assessment exercises.

3 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Aiming at the right urological targets

Last week, Professor of urology, Chris Chapple had a review published in  Continence , titled “The sensory system is a target for...

Anachronistic Bladder Treatments

During much of my medical career, my understanding of the human bladder was that it was a reservoir for the body’s metabolic waste and...

Drugs and dementia

Colleagues While I applaud last week’s publication of the Lancet Commission report on Dementia 2024 that provided updated information on...

Comments


bottom of page