There is a lot of discontent going on these days in the scientific community regarding the high-end science journals like Nature, Science and Cell. There's your usual corporate practice of saving a buck by obtaining what amounts to government subsidy and making the author do most of the work. There's the callous selection of only the "hottest" science as worthy of publication, which engenders fierce competition in some fields at the cost of utter neglect in others. And then there's this: in order to maximize the amount of printed material, high-end publishers have very strict page limits, exceeding which is punishable by fines. As a result, most of the work published in Nature and Science, for example (Cell is the exception) comes in the form of three- to five-page "reports". Given such format, the authors tend to not report very important caveats to their conclusions, data that may contradict their conclusions, information that proves the quality of their data. What you get is sensationalist literature rather than solid scientific reporting.

Moreover, the aforementioned fierce competition for the honor of having a paper in a high-impact journal induces many authors to rush their results into publication, and in their search for "hot" material, big journals very often allow questionable research to be published, often against the recommendations of reviewers. I know of a researcher whose paper was reviewed by four experts, three of which recommended against publication, but the paper was published (by Cell) anyway. What good is protecting the peer review process when the journal editors seem to reserve the right to ignore it?

The subset of the scientific community to which I belong recently experienced a rash of retractions of very prominent papers from high-impact journals. In all cases, the problem lay with incredibly faulty research, which passed peer review partly because crucial information was not made available. Furthermore, in several cases, publishers were very reluctant to print letters to the editor that challenged the conclusions of certain article. Some scientists reported that their criticisms of certain high-impact papers were simply not printed. Others were heavily censored (e.g., in one case there was some legitimate concern that the data in question were fabricated; Nature did not allow the challenger to use the word "fabricated", which weakened the impact of the challenge.) I think the scientific community (and the public in general) has a lot more reason to fear incidents of editor-sponsored censorship than government censorship which would supposedly result from open access.

On the other hand, even when aware of the pitfalls of publishing in high-impact journals, scientists yearn for that Nature paper anyway. Why? Because it gets us funded, that's why. And THAT is why open access journals MUST get more support, MUST become more prevalent and MUST develop as high or higher impact than commercial publications. Commercializing science subsidizes scientists, yes, but it also encourages shoddy research, fraud, poor quality control and censorship. It is decidedly not the other way around.

Dear tomreedtoon, I must say this: the ONLY thing that we, the people, can do in the face of this Inexorable March to Extinction (tm) that you're portraying is laugh. Or at least it's the only safe thing. One can join the survivalists and build a bunker in the Oregonian woodlands, complete with an armory and a harem. Or one can sit and bemoan the Evil Fate (tm). Or one can watch and laugh. Your choice.

In other news... may I propose that the reason our Republican Foxus Group (tm) was so lukewarm towards the candidates is because they were not hawkish enough? "Surge is not 'apparently', but definitely working," piffle, I say! McCain should've come out guns blazing and declared that if he were President, he'd bomb EVERYONE. Everyone!! Iran first, of course, but then just roll open the map and start crossin' 'em out in alphabetical order. And then the audience would be electrified and applauding and the focus group would be beside themselves in ecstasy. And perhaps Chris Matthews would finally notice McCain's "man smell" and swoon in adoration.

The Democrats are indicating that they already know what Petraeus has to say and that it's all bullshit. The Republicans are indicating that they know that the Democrats know that it's bullshit and that (9/11! 9/11! 9/11!) calling it bullshit is tantamount (9/11!) to (9/11!) high treason. Um, and also: Petraeus = superstar, and anyone who questions him disrespects "the best of our military tradition". Also, remember the Alam... I mean, 9/11.

In other words, same old same old. Everyone knows what everyone is going to say or do. Everyone knows that the Republicans are choosing to ride out this war on Bush's side, come what may. Everyone knows that Republicans are not kamikazes, they merely are secure in their position because the Democrats (their smoldering bloviation nonwithstanding) will meekly go along with anything Bush does. All these are foregone conclusions. It's like knowing the ending to the movie before you've even watched it.

I don't read the polls much, but I wonder if the pollsters ever ask "do you think any of this is a charade?" I am willing to bet a sizable chunk of my inheritance that 70% of the populace, at this point, would say "yes". The other 30% will wave the American flag and make sacrifices in front of their Shrine to Bush and Petraeus. In their survivalist bunker.

We need a government in our government, folks.