also, it is too helpful

Internet plays a pivotal role in all aspects of scientific research. As you have astutely observed, researchers can use the net to advance their works without being captivated by peripheral noise.

Riccardo - it depends on the context that you view 'noise'. Some would argue that any publicity is good publicity. Outside of academic media and publications - researchers can air and promote their research in more intimate environments - such as conferences and local, regional and national professional forums/round tables etc.

I think this question that does convenient access to online collaboration and the expression of ideas, lead to noisy scientific environments for serious researchers ?, can be successfully agreed with and also refuted at the same time for a variety of reasons.

A researcher should be open minded as a critical thinker as well a continuous learner or professional student. I can read your additional question which states that more researchers exist than can be published in prominent journals (assuming the publication material is worthy), so how can all researchers promote their work without becoming the noise ?

I hope to explain that all researchers can safely publish their work or research with or without becoming noise to cyber ecology. Let me start on a positive note that all researchers have more than enough space to post their work on the internet.

They can publish in good journals. Good enough, the vocabulary or word noise, means any unwanted sound. Noise is common in the internet but it can be easily detected and avoided or prevented in one way or another.

So in communication discipline, noise is a form of distraction or source of interruption that has the capacity to cause anger, frustration, barriers, or affect attention span in one way or another.

Some people have learnt to filter the flurry of materials that flood the internet. Internet freedom has become a human right issue and freedom of information search or choice is also very important.

But noise can also be avoided or sealed off or ignored as much as possible. There are many ways of controlling or preventing noise in this case. At the same time, the subject noise is very subjective, just like someone once said, one man's poison is another man's food, or one man's waste is another's wealth.

Let me refer to your idea that some journals are prominent. This concept is also very subjective. I think some journals, like businesses, schools, media houses, personalities, names, or websites are prominent because the marking strategies or their social marketing strategies.

Some prominent journals have also featured in embarrassing ethical dilemmas.Some journals are also elitists in membership and so they practice in-breeding since it usually the members of the same club who write for them and cite their journals.

My impression is that, a journal by nature or function is a peer reviewed publication of research articles. Some journals are not affordable to researchers from developing countries because they charge prohibitive costs.

All research articles are important as they have different inputs.

This means that all journals are prominent because they publish research work. All research are important in equal measure.

A journal per se, does not make a written article better or worse . Journal articles are to be peer reviewed and edited or proof read. The proofs are sent back to the author to confirm the quality of the work before the final publication.

The bottom line is peer review to make any journal reputable. If you reject any article that you read in the internet, it means that, it is noise to you. Just like some people reject certain internet materials, which are seen as objectionable, meaning noisy to them.

I think the true prominent journals are those that are freely or openly accessible to the majority of the readers or researchers, just like the mass media or newspapers are.

Best regards

Wilson

also, it is too helpful

According to Shannon Weaver model of communication, noise is an inhibiting factor in the communication process . Noise can be physical and can be psychological . The Internet breakdown, non clarity of signals and the clutter of so much unverified, motivated information meet the Shannon's inhibiting factor. Conclusion: the internet is noisy and confusing for science as well as social life.

It has positive and negative aspects.

Internet is too noisy for science because of a massive load of unverified , speculative and untested content which if bring into the service of science will harm the humanity .

Noisy sometimes but it is often very helpful..