Randy Sckekman’s , 2013 Nobel Prize winner’s, criticism of scientific journals; and the publish or perish system of gaining a scientific reputation.
Yes. I heard about that. Plus the peer review system and how that is a often a sham.
It is sometimes a sham because there are people in the field who are corrupt, ignorant or who have an ax to grind. It is up to real science and real scientists to test every premise and to be sure scientific method was correctly followed. Most peer reviewed science with the backing of a respected scientific community is handled correctly. It is peer review (and science) deniers who point to any lapse as proof that the whole system is corrupt. They have absolutely no evidence that it is, but they will continue to exaggerate every lapse they can find (even when the lapse was a result of poor or false science in the first place) and declare that they have proven their point.
I don’t disagree that the science deniers will attempt to use this to their advantage. But The Economist is hardly a science denier, and Randy Sckekman’s criticism of a major part of the current publish or perish method of hiring and promotion in the academic community is a necessary, part of the self-correcting basis of science. Hopefully the scientific will take actions to overcome the weakness he has pointed out.