💯 with you on this.

We also do preprints 100% of the time, but academic incentives are baked AF. Not ‘publishing’ means a large proportion of other academics simply won’t read or cite your work as they don’t believe in preprints. Additionally, funding bodies care about prestige publishing in top ranked journals, so if you don’t do this, the grant pool you have access to will be smaller.

The incentives need to change, where journal venue is irrelevant, or weighted far less than it is.

This comic is partially right. If you pay, you get open access, so no cost for readers. If you go old-school you don’t pay and the article is paywalled. Terrible system either way, but open access is necessary nowadays, as otherwise you will get cited less

Maybe…but I doubt many of these phylogenies use DNA, and if so, likely only a single or few genes. Nowhere near enough resolution to accurately determine genetic relatedness. Woody plants may actually be more related than we think.

These sorts of phylogenies tend to use morphological characteristics which is an unreliable measure of genetic relatedness.

I will stand corrected if wrong though

You don’t need their permission to write it up yourself

Everyone is always talking about spider silk as ropes. What about DNA huh? Mass strawberry extraction for a DNA space elevator when?

Open access credits is a fantastic idea. Unfortunately it goes against the business model of these parasites. Ultimately, these businesses provide little to no actual value except siphoning taxpayer money. I really prefer eLifes current model but it would be great if it was cheaper. arXiv, Biorxiv provides a better service than most journals IMO

Also I agree with the reviewing seriously and twice as often as publishing. Many people leave academia so reviewing more can cover them.

deleted by creator

Origin of life matters to a lot of people I think. RNA vs other self-replicating molecules? Moon-based tidal PCR? Cell formation etc.

I think there are so many new and great ideas in this space but you have to consider how science is funded. Funding bodies and reviewers want incremental research that is safe. This has led to our current situation. Phage therapy has been around for so long but is only in the last 10 years gained creditability and treated as a path to take. Ultimately, antimicrobial resistance is incredibly solvable even at a policy level and definitely across many scientific levels. But it requires more cooperation than farms, pharmacies, hospitals, states and countries can muster.

QR code for the DOI would be better IMO

Prion vaccines would work for sure. Their rarity makes it not all that worthwhile as a public health measure

Cations are pawsitive? Nawwww

That’s why you get a theoretical degree in physics

The Omelas generator

Depends on the publishing method you choose. If you want free for readers, authors pay. If you want free publishing, readers pay. Reviewers never get paid. Editors get paid shit. Journals profit massively for doing barely anything. Terrible in all directions. Preprint servers are the future

SnapGene

Truly the missing link

Tbh once I started using electronic pipettes I cannot go back. They are so good