Here is the problem. Quite often I sit in rooms with industry teams at a cross-roads. We discuss market access, positioning, medical education, clinical trial design and pharmacovigilance but rarely do we have the opportunity to level-set the conversation. We often assume that because we are all scientists--we know the "ins and outs" of the entire drug development process.
"The increasing APU size over time is important when considering the value of research articles for life scientists and publishers, as well as, the implications of these increasing trends in the mechanisms and economics of scientific communication."
STAT published an article in 2016, Are Science Papers Becoming Too Complex although since the evolution of their STAT Plus subscription fire-wall I tend to seek out news elsewhere. Don't get me wrong--we all need to make a living but I find it a bit disingenuous when social media headlines tease the latest discussions, you click, and are turned away unless you shell out $29/month.
There is an old adage attributed to Albert Einstein, "If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." Listen to the podcast--they understand science.
Observations, not stories, are the pillars of good science. Today’s journals however, favor story-telling over observations, and congruency over complexity. As a consequence, there is a pressure to tell only good stories.
Moreover, incentives associated with publishing in high-impact journals lead to loss of scientifically and ethically sound observations that do not fit the storyline, and in some unfortunate cases also to fraudulence. The resulting non-communication of data and irreproducibility not only delays scientific progress, but also negatively affects society as a whole.--ScienceMatters