Forever ago. Science and Nature are in the top 10 rated impact factors for life science journals. Other than NEJM (top rated), the nature derivatives round out most of the top ten as well (nature genetics, nature reviews, etc...).
I think the problem stems from the inability for peer review to adequately test or reproduce papers before they are published. Which gives Nature and Science (which both make a large amount of money from their publishing practices) a lot of leeway to publish 'headline' based science. What bothers me, is that a lot of headline based papers paint a 'either or scenario' - or attempt to proove positives. When in reality, the scientific method can only disprove hypotheses. Only holistic second source papers (review articles) should make large claims; for instance, no single paper prooves the theory of evolution, but rather a large corpus of papers fail to disprove the theory.
An additional problem is accepting anything peer reviewed as valid because it was peer reviewed. Which is the driving force behind the peer review paywall - that peer reviewed artcles are somehow more valid then other forms of communication mediums. This implies that there exist somewhere, a publication format that is infalliable. And since retractions and fraud occur all the time in peer review, there are plenty of counter arguments to disproove this notion.
While this annoys me some, it will never be fixed. The number of 'scientists' that do not employ sound thinking and reason, will always out weigh the number of brilliant minds. There is a reason why almost all science can be traced back to five individuals (Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Einstein). These people reached a level of analytical thought that was unmatched. Surely we might be able to argue that they reached the low hanging fruits - but it was really their ability to not accept popular thought, and dismiss assumptions, and in most cases show a revered defiance towards establishments (Galileo especially) because they refused to not appeals to the fact (nullius in verba). So rather then spend a large amount of time to rid the world of bad publishing form - we should just accept it; and unfortunately most of us will never 'free our minds from the allegory of the cave'. And probably even more so for the groups that spend a large amount of advertising and headlines to convince others that they have reached this level of thought.
Wow - that comment got away from me fast; I really only intended to write the first two sentences, and just kept typing.
I think the problem stems from the inability for peer review to adequately test or reproduce papers before they are published. Which gives Nature and Science (which both make a large amount of money from their publishing practices) a lot of leeway to publish 'headline' based science. What bothers me, is that a lot of headline based papers paint a 'either or scenario' - or attempt to proove positives. When in reality, the scientific method can only disprove hypotheses. Only holistic second source papers (review articles) should make large claims; for instance, no single paper prooves the theory of evolution, but rather a large corpus of papers fail to disprove the theory.
An additional problem is accepting anything peer reviewed as valid because it was peer reviewed. Which is the driving force behind the peer review paywall - that peer reviewed artcles are somehow more valid then other forms of communication mediums. This implies that there exist somewhere, a publication format that is infalliable. And since retractions and fraud occur all the time in peer review, there are plenty of counter arguments to disproove this notion.
While this annoys me some, it will never be fixed. The number of 'scientists' that do not employ sound thinking and reason, will always out weigh the number of brilliant minds. There is a reason why almost all science can be traced back to five individuals (Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Einstein). These people reached a level of analytical thought that was unmatched. Surely we might be able to argue that they reached the low hanging fruits - but it was really their ability to not accept popular thought, and dismiss assumptions, and in most cases show a revered defiance towards establishments (Galileo especially) because they refused to not appeals to the fact (nullius in verba). So rather then spend a large amount of time to rid the world of bad publishing form - we should just accept it; and unfortunately most of us will never 'free our minds from the allegory of the cave'. And probably even more so for the groups that spend a large amount of advertising and headlines to convince others that they have reached this level of thought.
Wow - that comment got away from me fast; I really only intended to write the first two sentences, and just kept typing.