Low quality publications dilute the good.
Example: when anti-vaccine conspiracy theorists cling to refuted studies denounced by the authors themselves.
Or whenever a contemporary study attempts to refute climate change... those papers are sometimes paid for by the oil sector.
It's always a trade-off. For one, that's why papers are peer reviewed to begin with. As for oil companies sponsoring people promoting bad work, that's the world we live in. A world of dis-information. That being said, freedom of speech is still most important.
Peer review is only as good as the integrity of the reviewers and editors. Publish for profit models will take rejected work and just find more reviewers. If the reviewer isn't an expert or doesn't care....
Well, I don't have a Ph.D., but I do have one peer reviewed work in the prestigious IEEE ISCAS journal, and one in a lesser IEEE journal. That lesser work is more important to me, it's error correction of arithmetic. But it was rejected out of hand by the ARITH folks who just assumed it was trash.
And good ol' free speech, let's go call astronauts retarded and blame Ukraine for starting the war and tell the world that tobacco isn't addictive and SARS is no worse than the flu and CO2 emissions aren't linked to temperature.
Every attack on academia and the media curtails free speech.
You're confusing free speech with facts. I can't reverse ALL the ignorance in the world, and I doubt you can either. Free speech is just about all you have to work with.
Comments
Example: when anti-vaccine conspiracy theorists cling to refuted studies denounced by the authors themselves.
Or whenever a contemporary study attempts to refute climate change... those papers are sometimes paid for by the oil sector.
Every attack on academia and the media curtails free speech.