>tfw you publish complete fucking garbage in a top journal

what's so bad about your publication?

The stamp-collecting variety might be, yeah. But that is being automated away and thank fuck for that.

I know that feel, OP. It's one of the reasons I left academia for the private sector. The amount of bullshit floating around will make seriously question whether we know anything about anything or if the whole damn scientific enterprise isn't a fucking circus.

>tried to publish an article in a climate science journal last year
>was told that it was basically bulletproof
>reflected because my "claims cast doubt on the consensus" or some such nonsense
>email the publication to find out more

Long story, short they straight up told me I was being an obstacle to grant funding by trying to publish evidence that casts doubt on anthropocentric climate change.

>>8877676
Is this bait? Or would you perhaps enlighten us to what your findings were?

>>8877692
>Is this bait?
No. If you are against the consensus, you are out. The science is settled and only papers that approves the science are published.

>(20.17)(10^2)
>not using your rights to believe in alt-science

when will brainlets ever learn

>>8877694
But I am legitimately curious. Please post what you have. Getting tired of all the same anti-AGW infographs being posted so maybe you can give us some new material.

>>8877710
Too bad it's just /pol/ trolling.

>>8877710
It was my high school journal really and the paper is based on some statistics on the drying times of my mom's laundry.
Basically there's a correlation between the appearance of anthropocentric climate change headlines and days were the clothes took more time to dry.
I think they are using this to reinforce the man-made climate change idea whenever there's bad weather as a compensatory strategy.

>>8877980
libtards BTFO

>>8877643
Science isn't about journals and accolades. It's about seeking answers with a systematic approach. We just had a generation of "popularizers" and media that have dumbed everyone down. Treating "Science" like a thing or the result and ignoring the process. Using "Scientists say" as a kind of royal "we".
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/04/107-cancer-papers-retracted-due-to-peer-review-fraud/

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/22/science/open-access-journals.html?_r=0

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1512330

>>8877980
You didn't get published because you're an idiot.

>>8878036

You got baited because you're an idiot.

>>8878024
>It's about seeking answers with a systematic approach.
prove that science brings answers

>>8878024
This, so much this.

>>8877643
So have most of my former professors.
Its pathetic above anything else.

>wait a year worrying if you'll get published
>scorn the journal for accepting you
???

>>8878036
Impressive

>>8877894
B-b-but [spoiler]I'm /pol/ trolling what I presume to be a false flagging antifaggot[/spoiler]

Haven't read any convincing anti-AGW papers so far.