Chatter about academic publishing, condensed for easy reference:

- Why didn't the Action Editor reject this garbage paper I got assigned?

- I can't believe that Action Editor desk rejected my paper. At least let Reviewers see it? SMDH with this gatekeeping.

- We need transparency in all studies. Publish everything and make a Utopia!

- This fucking paper should never have been published.

- I can't believe it took an Editor 4 weeks to get my paper out for review!!! WTF are they even doing?!?

- Ugh, can't believe I had to decline 4 review invitations this week.

- Prestige glam journals like Science/Nature/PNAS are the literal devil.

- Can't believe Science and Nature desk rejected my paper!!!

- Peer review is fallible, of course things slip through. Humans are human.

- OMG how did THAT JOURNAL ever let THIS PAPER get through peer review.

- Well, it passed peer review, clearly it merits scholarly discussion.

- Real scientists don't call for retractions; they write commentaries!

- [behind the veil of peer review] Don't publish this commentary pls.

- Citation metrics are flawed and should be ignored.

- ZOMG preprinted papers get cited more!!!!

- [50+ elite authors, in glam journal]: Overpublication And A Focus On Prestige Outlets Undermines Scientific Credibility
502 5002

- Nuanced modeling paper about scientific ecosystem
4 15

- A focus on publishing tons erodes mental health, prevents deep thought, gets in the way of long-term collaboration and planning.

- Publishing tons is the best way to be impactful and successful.

Publishing can be confusing, so I hope that helped!