What happens to scientific papers after they're published?

[Anonymous No.11339538]

Do they just go into a void?
How can there be so many papers that get overlooked and thrown away, aren't they all, by definition, new research?
Surely, they must be helpful to some people?

[Anonymous No.11339543]

>>11339538
No it’s just charades

[Anonymous No.11339548]

>>11339538
arXiv

[Anonymous No.11339549]

the point of scientific research is not being helpful. The vast body of scientific research likely will never help anymore, not even other researchers in the same field.

[Anonymous No.11339585]

>>11339538
>Do they just go into a void?
yes

>How can there be so many papers that get overlooked and thrown away, aren't they all, by definition, new research?
they aren't all new research

>Surely, they must be helpful to some people?
lmao no

[Anonymous No.11339723]

>>11339538
They become law and questioning them becomes heresy.

[Anonymous No.11339752]

>>11339538
Fields are so specialized that you're lucky if a handful of scientists are even interested in or are able to understand your paper. The only way to get noticed by a broad audience is to show some weak non-causal correlation between Reese's Cups consumption and lower incidence of ass cancer, and then clickbait pop-sci "journalists" will latch onto it and claim Reese's Cups are the cure for cancer.

[Anonymous No.11339753]

>>11339538
>Surely, they must be helpful to some people?
Scientific papers are frequently cited against patent applications.

>>11339723
In patent prosecution it is an uphill battle to show that the paper was fake, even though Retraction Watch has documented time and again that publishing is troubled.

t. patent attorney.

[Anonymous No.11339755]

>>11339538

[Anonymous No.11339757]

>>11339753
Good lord, I can only imagine. I was just talking about basic theory and claims, not inventions and shit. I'm so glad I never went into STEM as a career. The professionals make me loathe science any time I have to engage with them in any way.

[Anonymous No.11339759]

>>11339755
Huxley was mostly wrong and Orwell was mostly right. This comic "artist" is a faggot, a loser and a retard.

[Anonymous No.11339764]

>>11339759
both were equally right. both styles of control are employed.

[Anonymous No.11339780]

>read a paper
>N=20
>into the trash it goes

[Anonymous No.11339782]

>>11339764
No. They weren't. Huxley was wrong about almost everything. Orwell only got two things wrong: 1 the population was much lower due to war or something and 2 he assumed the state would be the power exerting oppressive control, when it turns out in real life mililuv has a stupid Amazon smirk plastered on it and minitrue is run by CNN. And none of its for the good of the state, but for the bank accounts of aristocrats. Huxley created a whole fucking world of nonsense that never came to pass including public orgies and baby factories spawning retarded pilots.

[Anonymous No.11339895]

>>11339757
>The professionals make me loathe science any time I have to engage with them in any way.
Why?

Remember the academic career pyramid narrows quickly so many find alternative jobs such as patent Examiner or patent attorneys. Quite a few, therefore, have a PhD. There are rumours many have Aspergers though I have never seen anything written on this issue.

[Anonymous No.11339911]

>>11339895
Because of the shitty politics in all scientific fields. Science is far more about culture than the work at this point. Shit that should be blatantly obvious is heresy because a particular field had a particular member who had a particularly retarded idea and who was highly influential 35 years ago. This shit happens all the time and it's fucking cancer.

And that's before you even get to the mainstream political agendas. I mean fuck ecology as a science at this point. It's basically just a PR campaign for corporations who want to destroy the environment now.

[Anonymous No.11339933]

>>11339911
I was at a conference recently and they had a panel discussion titled "Getting your work published: tips for early researchers". The panel mostly put forth lame obvious info (make sure you check the journal-specific formatting before submitting a manuscript, lmao).
The important point is during the Q and A someone asked one of the panel memebers (who was an editor with one of the wiley journals) how journals deal with bias towards well established big names in the field, and if there are any tips they have for early researchers getting their work out for review and past the editor's desk when their name is not well known.
The editor was taken aback by potential "bias towards big names" and started going on about some shit about how he loves seeing big names land on his desk because he knows he's about to read a good paper.
I just fucking left. I hate this shit. Everything is trash.

[Anonymous No.11339954]

>>11339933
Agreed. I've basically abandoned ship when it comes to the mainstream view of the sciences I'm interested in. I just concern myself with the parts relevant to myself and ignore the "experts" now. If they publish something specific that applies to something I'm looking for, I'll give it a read. Other than that, I consider all experts to be lowest form of retard imaginable now.

[Anonymous No.11341381]

>>11339538
Fuck thats a good guess

[Anonymous No.11341417]

>>11339538
Alternatively some science chad comes along and makes a shitton of money based off of your work, without you ever receiving any benefit from it.

[Anonymous No.11341690]

>>11339538
>Surely, they must be helpful to some people?
Publishing is what gets you a promotion in academia, the rest is bonus. Some are reworked patent applications after the applications are filed. Those could be commercially interesting but then again the paper itself is just a by product.

[Anonymous No.11341789]

>>11339538
Eventually I, or someone like me, reads them

[Anonymous No.11341814]

>>11339911
>>11339933
>>11339954
That's one of the most based exchanges I have seen on this board. I hope it is not samefag schizoposter, a very real possibility here

[Anonymous No.11341823]

>>11339782
>>11339782
You sound like a 14 year old sparknotes reader.

Huxley's world not only did come to pass, it's been happening since the dawn of history. Every new day is a BNW, the progression is slow enough people don't know. We are evolving towards a utilitarian singularity where convenience and diminishment of suffering aided by tehnology and social progressivism is conflated with happiness. The people who live in it are only vaguely aware of it or don't care.

Look at the studies done on happiness in Scandinivan countrie compared to Eastern bloc countries, then on the ones comparing Amish population to contemporary urban societies.

That's what makes it more sinister than Orwell. You think the average chinese is a person lives in fear of surveillance and censorship? That the success of the authoritarian state is because passed some hypothetical point of no return? They care more about harmony and stability. And that's the problem. Complacency. And what has the NSA done for all the surveillance they put on the US population? Jack shit.

The only people who fall for Orwellian scare mongering are underage kids who think it's cool to fantasize about such things or paranoid neckbeards on /g/ who thinks compiling FOSS written by other people makes them hardcore.
>public orgies and baby factories spawning retarded pilots.
Holy shit you're dense. Stop browsing wikipedia and get off /sci/ kid

[Anonymous No.11341828]

>>11339538

[Anonymous No.11341843]

>>11339780
>bothering to read papers on social sciences in the first place

[Anonymous No.11341893]

>>11339538
They get used by other people, maybe. I read a geology paper once that literally just described the rock layers of one mountain in Death Valley. It wasn’t that long but it was absolutely mind numbing to read, and it’s in my major. Nobody wants to read that shit. But if you’re doing research and need to know if a certain rock is found in DV, this paper would help. Go visit a large universities library some day, they should have a massive inventory of scientific journals dating back decades. I assume it’s mostly digital now. It’s kinda neat to go read about some dude was studying in 1956.

[Anonymous No.11341898]

>>11341814
>not samefag
Not him but if you want to check out the state of publishing you shoud visit retractionwatch.com to see the train wreck in its full glory. The problem is so huge they had to set up a database to present all cases.

And that does not count fraud during reviews.

[Anonymous No.11341933]

>>11341823
Oh, have you engaged in orgy-porgy today? Which birthing facility did you emerge from? Huxley was literally wrong about EVERYTHING. Everything. The only thing he got right was "Americans be shopping". That's not high philosophy.

[Anonymous No.11341944]

>>11341843
>social sciences doesn't even real
>OMG WHY IS SOCIETY FALLING APART!?!?! HELP ME, SOCIAL SCIENCE!!!

[Anonymous No.11341946]

>>11341814
It isn't. >>11339911 and >>11339954 are me.