I believe the question proposed by Alessandro Diana has to be modified .
"How far are scientists willing to go to publish their rejected articles or scientific reviews? "
Since now ArXieve has been used for more than a decade, and that other e-journals with "a posteriori" or without reviews exist, the problem is not there, since everybody can publish papers. And most papers are really published.
So the right question should be:
How many papers have not passed the scientific evaluation of editors and why and still maintained in the free- e-edition (ArXive,...)?
It is easy to check the small number of articles in ArXive and in other (e-)journals which have not passed the editorial reviewing process, at one step, or after few steps...
Then we can count them and analyse the failure reason... and we can try to analyse why the authors want to maintain their papers on the e-free publication site.
We will no the different reasons for this, and quantifie/identifies the defects of edition technique, if there are.
sorry
real question:
How many papers have not passed the scientific evaluation of editors? and why? and why are they still maintained in the free- e-edition (ArXive,...)?
Are they wrong from their authors;
can the scientific community give simple good reason for their wrongness?
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Papers