What’s wrong with journal publishing and peer review?

what happens to the comments of peer-reviewers of rejected papers? Practically nobody hears about them. Peer reviewers are unpaid consultants, they receive no credit for their reviews, they waste their time, and then their comments are discarded, while the papers that they showed to be wrong eventually get published and cited and shape the scientific literature.

Three public health professors chronicle the many, many unpleasant facts in academic publishing. Their brutal gaze falls on medicine most of all, but my brief exposure suggests the social sciences are not so dissimilar.

Our old friends the BMJ (see Monday’s post) come out badly. Not as bad, however, as our peaceful, fish-eating neighbors to the north:

An analysis of papers from Norway (a country with overall high-quality research) showed that 36% of the citations received within a 3-year window are self-citations.

Via Marginal Revolution. Worth reading in full.