Comment by wetwater
3 hours ago
With so much publishing fraud, low quality of publishing and bogus peer review, I am hard pressed to believe anything that comes out of these journals. I was highly disappointed after reading about Dana-Farber Cancer Institute publishing fraud that endangered so many people lives. Specially papers with 'dietary' research, which are even more bogus. So if someone says, eat X to reduce chance of cancer, I'd ask them to take X put it back where the sun don’t shine.
Cell is not one of "these journals". Publishing to Cell, Nature, Science used to guarantee tenure track for a young professor although I'm not sure if that's still the case.
I know that used to be the case. But its unfortunately not anymore. I am currently In RF and working on some resonators and waveguides. Recently I had the displeasure of reading some papers from top journals to survey what are some new designs that are being pursued. I was highly disappointed by the low bar of publishing. No characterisation of design, no repeatability study, no comsol files, no fringe field study. Most of the papers read like "we came up with design, tested it with the lowest hanging usecase and there are the results attached with a basic smith chart we made". How am I supposed to have any confidence in anything that is being published like this . The point of public funded research is so I don’t have to research and I can take that research and use/engineer it. But If this is the output then I am not going to spend money and time to do studies to figure out if someone else's research is viable or not because the peer review is broken and publishing bar is in the grave.